Install a DESIGN.md into this project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds a genuinely useful trait beyond the schema: the file is "stamped with its origin so a later session can identify it via get_project_design." However, it does not disclose failure behavior when DESIGN.md already exists and overwrite=false, reversibility, or any permission requirements, which matters for a disk-writing operation.

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?

Two sentences totaling roughly 60 words: the first delivers the action and artifact, the second delivers the decision rule. Every sentence earns its place and the core behavior is front-loaded with no filler.

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 definition is complete enough for a 4-parameter file-writing tool: purpose, output artifact, workflow linkage to get_project_design, and decision context are all present, with parameters fully documented in the schema. It loses a point because there is no output schema and the description does not cover what happens when the target file already exists or what a successful invocation returns.

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 the baseline of 3 applies even with no parameter detail in the description. The description adds marginal value by connecting the namespaced design_id example ("getdesign:stripe") to the origin-stamping behavior, but it does not elaborate on any parameter beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific multi-step action — "Download a design system and write it to the project as DESIGN.md" — naming both the verb chain and the artifact produced. It also references sibling get_project_design, which distinguishes the install/persist behavior from read-only siblings like get_design, search_designs, and get_design_tokens.

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 second sentence gives an explicit when: "when the project is adopting a design system for real," and a clear when-not: "rather than answering one question about it." It stops short of naming the specific alternative tool for one-off questions, so the exclusion is implied rather than explicit.

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