create_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral disclosure. It explains the per-entry return format, the ordering dependence, and aliasing, but does not mention idempotency or whether existing tokens are overwritten. It also doesn't explicitly state that duplicate names are allowed (though that's in the schema). This leaves some ambiguity about conflict behavior, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 compact paragraph that leads with the action, then returns format, then ordering rules. It contains only necessary details and is logically ordered, though the ordering rules are a bit dense.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description specifies the return object shape. It covers aliasing, ordering, and reuse preference, and the schema covers fileId and token fields. The only missing aspect is explicit error handling specifics, but the return format handles that. For a creation tool, this is complete enough.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by detailing the `value` parameter's use of `var()` for aliasing and providing ordering constraints that depend on parameter values. This goes beyond the schema, so a 4 is justified.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('Create one or more design tokens') and clarifies scope via the alias instruction and return format. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like set_tokens (which implies modification) and audit_design_tokens (which is analysis).

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 explicitly provides ordering rules and a preference for reuse over creation, which serves as a guideline for when to use this tool versus reusing existing tokens. It does not explicitly compare to set_tokens, but the context implies creation is for new tokens.

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