set_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly states mutating behaviors (update, rename, delete) and adds useful runtime detail: one result per entry and in-band per-entry errors. It does not discuss persistence implications or rollback, but the destructive action is explicitly surfaced.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses bullets to enumerate operation modes without redundancy. Every sentence contributes operational value.

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 all core operations and return behavior, which matters because there is no output schema. It relies on the schema for fileId and description-param details, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage. A concrete example would improve completeness slightly, but nothing essential is missing.

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 meaningful semantics beyond the schema, especially the alias pattern 'Use var(--other-token) to alias' and the optionality relationship between name, newName, value, and delete.

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 names a specific verb-resource pair: 'Update or delete existing design tokens', and further specifies targeting by 'full CSS variable name'. This clearly differentiates it from related siblings like create_tokens and audit_design_tokens.

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 gives concrete usage branches (rename, update value, delete), making it clear when this tool applies. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or saying 'use create_tokens for new tokens', but the word 'existing' provides an implicit exclusion.

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