design_pipeline

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains the pipeline behavior: captures preferences via design_intake, generates real copy, produces research-backed options with wireframes, and returns a combined report. It also notes the sequential dependency on a PRD. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses a compact list of steps and key behaviors. It is dense but not wasteful; every sentence adds a distinct piece of information (prerequisite, behavior, output, alternatives).

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 complex orchestration tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it states prerequisites, step sequence, inputs (preferences), outputs (combined report), and customization (individual step alternatives). The only minor gap is a detailed return format, but 'combined report with all artifacts' is sufficient.

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 70%, with most parameters already described. The description adds contextual nuance (e.g., preferences go to design_intake, copy is generated) but does not explain individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. This is a minimally adequate contribution.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Run the full Design Intelligence pipeline in sequence', and enumerates the exact sequence of steps. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual steps (ux_design, design_challenge, copy_generate).

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?

It provides an explicit prerequisite ('Requires PRD to exist (run rc_define first)') and an explicit alternative ('Each step can also be called individually for more control'). This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and when to prefer individual steps.

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