design_select

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), destructive=false, and idempotent=true. The description adds transparency by explicitly stating that it 'Saves the selected option ID to project state', which is a side effect beyond the annotations. It also mentions the Deep Dive requirement, providing additional behavioral context without contradicting the 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 two sentences, tightly packed with essential information: the action, the target output, the state update, the downstream consumers, and the required mode. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has only two simple parameters and no output schema, so the description covers the key aspects: purpose, side effect, and usage context. It could mention that selected options come from a finite set (already in schema) but not necessary. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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% with both parameters described (option_id gives allowed values, project_path gives absolute path). The tool description adds no further parameter meaning beyond referencing 'selected option ID', 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 action ('Select a design option') and the resource (design option from ux_design output). It further explains the effect on project state and ties to downstream tools, distinguishing it from siblings like design_iterate and design_challenge.

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 specifies when to use this tool: after reviewing ux_design output and as a required step in Deep Dive mode (UX score >= 7) before Gate 2. It implicitly positions it as a prerequisite for design_iterate, design_challenge, and code generation, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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