design_iterate

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

Annotations provide minimal behavioral hints (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint false), and the description adds context by stating it loads the current design spec, regenerates wireframes, and maintains design system consistency. This covers the core behavior without contradicting annotations, though it could disclose more details about overwriting or side effects.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds value: what it does, how it works, and a key prerequisite. No filler or redundant content.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, input (feedback), scope (screens/options), and a prerequisite. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it, though return values and error conditions are not mentioned.

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 100%, with each parameter fully described in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 iterates on existing wireframes based on user feedback, with a specific verb ('Iterate') and resource ('existing wireframes'). It distinguishes itself from siblings such as ux_design (initial generation) and copy_iterate (copy iteration) by focusing on design wireframes and requiring prior ux_design execution.

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 provides clear usage context by specifying the precondition that ux_design must have run first, and explains the behavior of targeting specific screens or all screens. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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