create_design_element

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the nesting behavior and rollup effect, but omits details about return values, error conditions, permissions, or side effects beyond creation. This is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the purpose, and the second explains key parameters and the rollup behavior, making it well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

For a create tool with no output schema, the description covers essential semantics: what constitutes a root vs. nested element and how progress rolls up. It lacks details on validation or response, but the core usage context is adequately complete.

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?

The description meaningfully explains type_id and parent_id, which are the least obvious parameters. However, project_id and name are not addressed, and the schema has no descriptions, so the description only partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 the tool creates a design element as a node in the design/feature tree, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like update_design_element and delete_design_element, and clarifies the tree-nesting concept.

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?

Provides clear usage guidance for parent_id (omit for root) and explains the purpose of linking work items to enable progress rollup. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, but the context for when to use create vs. update/delete is implied.

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