swebsy_commit_design_direction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'apply[ies]' the direction and should be called once, implying a mutating action. However, it does not disclose whether repeated calls override the existing direction, whether the action is reversible, or any side effects on existing content. This leaves important behavioral details ambiguous.

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 concise (about four sentences) and efficiently front-loaded with the core action, followed by timing, parameter preference, and exclusion. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (nested objects, two parameters) and rich schema, the description covers the essential context: when to call, what it does, and when to use each parameter. It does not specify the return value, but there is no output schema, so that omission is acceptable. The description is nearly complete, though it could explicitly mention that a site must already exist, but this is implied from the timing guidance.

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%, and the schema itself thoroughly describes each parameter, including the nested custom object's fields. The description adds valuable decision-making guidance by stating which parameter to prefer (`directionId` over `custom`) and when the custom fallback is appropriate, going beyond mere parameter lists.

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 states the tool's purpose: committing a site to a specific visual direction and applying it (fonts, type roles, palette swatches). It uses a specific verb-resource pairing and distinguishes itself from siblings by describing a unique action (commit design direction) not present in any other tool.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this ONCE, BEFORE generating a new site's first page' and explicitly states when not needed: 'Not needed when editing a site that already has a direction.' It also gives a decision rule between parameters: 'Prefer a `directionId` from the sampled menu; supply the `custom` fields only when the user's brief clearly calls for something the menu doesn't cover.'

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