refactor_design_structure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose dry-run support and hints at safety, which is helpful, but 'safely' is vague and it does not state whether changes are reversible, create checkpoints, or have side effects on the broader document.

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?

One sentence with no filler: the verb and resource come first, strategies are compactly grouped, and dry-run support is appended. Every phrase earns its place.

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 description covers the core purpose and strategies but leaves gaps for a mutating tool: no output format, no statement about side effects or reversibility, and no guidance on how dry-run output relates to the real refactor. The schema fills parameter details, but the tool's operation is not fully specified.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by translating the enum strategies into natural-language meanings: 'semantic layer renaming', '8pt spacing normalization', and 'flattening redundant wrappers', plus it references the dryRun capability beyond the bare schema field.

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 ('refactors') and a clear resource ('canvas structure'), then enumerates the exact refactor strategies it covers. It is clear and distinguishable from generic sibling tools like rename_nodes or update_styles, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 parenthetical list implies when the tool is appropriate: semantic layer renaming, spacing normalization, or wrapper flattening. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to use an alternative tool or when not to use this one.

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