configure_design_system_source

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

Description indicates a write operation ('Save'), aligning with destructiveHint=true. However, it does not disclose side effects like overwriting existing configuration or validation of file existence. Annotations already indicate destructiveness, so description adds moderate value.

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?

Description is a single sentence that directly states the purpose with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Adequate for a simple configuration tool, but lacks details on return value, persistence, or effects on other tools like inventory_design_system. Given 5 parameters and no output schema, more context would be helpful.

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%, and baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information; it only references 'local DESIGN.md file' but ignores other parameters like project_dir, source_kind (const), aliases, etc.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Save' and resource 'local DESIGN.md file' with purpose 'for design-system inventory and comparison'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_design_md or init_design_md.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, such as existence of the DESIGN.md file or prior initialization. Lacks explicit 'use when' context.

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