Generate Design

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description adds context: it enumerates what the draft contains and discloses failure behavior ('Unknown pattern names raise ERR_003'). That error contract is genuinely useful beyond structured fields, though it doesn't say whether generation overwrites prior drafts or requires a completed analysis.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the two input modes. The enumeration of returned artifacts is somewhat long but is compacted into one clause with no wasted framing.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't detail return values, yet it still summarizes them; combined with the ERR_003 note, an agent has enough to call it correctly. It does not explicitly state that one of 'analysis' or 'patterns' must be supplied despite all four params being optional, which is a small gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the anyOf paths, the 'required with patterns, ignored when analysis is supplied' constraint, and the language list. The description adds only marginal value by noting that pattern names may be aliases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('materialize the pattern applications') and resource ('a design'), and distinguishes the two input modes by naming the sibling tool analyze_design whose payload feeds one of them. An agent can tell what the tool produces and how it differs from analyze_design/select_design_patterns without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the two invocation paths (reuse a prior analyze_design payload vs. explicit pattern names plus a system description) and notes 'description' is ignored when 'analysis' is supplied. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool in favor of siblings like select_design_patterns or evaluate_design, but the path-level routing is clear.

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