Compose design tokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral details beyond that: it compiles tokens, supports light/dark/both modes, accent override, and WCAG contrast warnings. No contradictions with 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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and lists key options. It is reasonably concise and avoids redundancy, though it could be broken into multiple sentences for better readability.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no param descriptions, the description provides a decent high-level overview but lacks parameter-level details needed for correct invocation. It covers the tool's purpose and key behaviors but is incomplete for parameter understanding.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions high-level token categories (color, typography, etc.) but does not map them to specific parameters like primaryStyleId, secondaryStyleId, locale, or density. Details about enums and required fields are missing, leaving the agent without enough context to correctly set parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compose') and resource ('design tokens') and lists concrete categories (color, typography, etc.) and output formats. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like recommend_design_direction or compare_design_directions, which cover different design tasks.

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 the tool is for generating tokens for a style, and sibling tools cover separate design decisions (direction, principles). While no explicit 'when to use' or exclusions are stated, the context makes it clear this is for token compilation rather than other design activities.

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