Create a DESIGN.md file to document design context using a stored Raven token system, a starter slug, or a blank template.
Initialize a DESIGN.md file from a stored Raven token system, a getdesign.md starter slug, or a blank template.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from | No | Source selector: blank, stored system, or starter slug | |
| path | Yes | Path to DESIGN.md to create |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not required to restate those. It adds the source-selection behavior not visible in the schema, but it does not disclose what gets destroyed or whether an existing DESIGN.md is overwritten. The description does not contradict 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 one tight sentence, front-loads the main action, and communicates the essential source modes with no filler. Every phrase earns its place.
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 description is reasonably complete for a 2-parameter initializer, but gaps remain around the optional 'from' parameter's default behavior and the destructive effect on an existing DESIGN.md. With no output schema and no explicit overwrite semantics, an agent is left to infer these details from annotations alone.
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%, so both 'from' and 'path' are already documented in the schema. The description adds a bit of extra context by naming the specific source options, but it does not meaningfully compensate for or clarify anything beyond the schema's own descriptions.
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 names the verb 'Initialize,' the target resource 'DESIGN.md,' and the supported sources: a stored Raven token system, a getdesign.md starter slug, or a blank template. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_design_md and update_design_md without needing to inspect their schemas.
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 implies when this tool is used (creating/initializing a DESIGN.md) but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over update_design_md or read_design_md, nor does it list exclusions. The source options give some context, but there is no explicit when-not or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.