Create a new design token

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool fails with DUPLICATE_ID on conflicts and implies a persistent write operation. However, it does not mention auth requirements, response behavior, or any other side effects beyond the duplicate failure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One dense sentence that front-loads the core action, then states the failure mode and the alternate tool. Every word contributes meaningful routing or behavioral information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves important gaps. It covers the create-vs-update decision and the duplicate behavior, but it does not explain required parameter semantics or what happens on success, making it incomplete for an agent constructing a valid call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It only indirectly references id uniqueness. For 9 parameters including ambiguous ones like type, usage, source, and aliases, the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a create action on a specific resource: 'Register a brand-new design token.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling registry_update_token by explicitly framing the duplicate-id case, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool: for a brand-new token. It also names the alternative for existing ids: 'use registry_update_token instead.' This is clear routing guidance with no inference required.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.