update_token

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. Describes return format { updated, name, pushedToFigma, reason? } and promises that failed pushes are reported, never silently dropped. Also notes error on missing token. Lacks detail on idempotency but sufficient.

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?

4 sentences, front-loaded with main action. Succinct but could merge repeated 'optionally pushing to Figma' reference. Still efficient for the information provided.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return value. Covers prerequisites, usage, error handling, alternative. For a tool with 3 params and nested objects, this is complete and informative.

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% (baseline 3). Description adds context: token name matching logic (exact then case-insensitive path), values map is a merge (only specified modes updated), and pushToFigma defaults to false. Adds meaningful value beyond schema.

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 starts with 'Update a design token value in the local registry, optionally pushing to Figma', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'sync_design_tokens' which is for bulk Tailwind mapping.

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?

Lists prerequisites: token must exist (names via get_tokens) and Figma connection only for pushToFigma. Explicitly states alternative: 'For bulk Tailwind mapping use sync_design_tokens'.

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