Update design tokens in DESIGN.md without altering the rest of the Markdown body. Set, rename, or remove token values by group and dotted path.
Update one DESIGN.md token surgically while preserving the Markdown body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| set | No | ||
| path | Yes | Path to DESIGN.md | |
| remove | No | ||
| rename | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context by saying the Markdown body is preserved and the edit is surgical, which mitigates the destructive hint somewhat. Still, it does not clarify that remove/rename operations can delete or move tokens, nor mention any irreversible effects in more detail.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning: the resource is named, the operation is scoped to one token, and the important preservation guarantee is clearly stated.
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 nested operations (set, remove, rename), no output schema, and a destructive annotation, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It signals the core constraint and preservation goal, and the schema provides parameter details, but the description itself does not prepare the agent for the alternate mutation modes or the outcome of applying them.
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 only 25%, and the description does little to compensate. It conveys granularity (one token) but does not explain the set, remove, and rename operation objects, their aliases, or how to choose between them. The added parameter-level meaning is therefore minimal.
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 identifies the verb ('Update') and the specific resource ('one DESIGN.md token'), and the phrase 'while preserving the Markdown body' adds meaningful scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like read_design_md or init_design_md, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 phrase 'one DESIGN.md token surgically' implies use for targeted token edits and preservation of the Markdown body, giving some contextual guidance. But the description never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives, when it should not be used, or which sibling to choose for broader design-file rewrites or reads.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.