sdd-design

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. 'Submit' implies a write operation, but nothing is said about side effects, resource modifications, concurrency handling, or failure modes. Key behavioral details like optimistic concurrency (expectedRevision) and integrity checks (expectedArtifactSha256) are entirely omitted.

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 short phrase, which is concise in length but severely under-specified. It lacks a complete sentence structure and fails to convey any meaningful detail. This is under-specification, not effective conciseness, as no value is packed into the text.

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 tool operates within a larger SDD workflow, but the description gives no context about the design lifecycle, where this submission fits, or what input is expected. With four required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 only 25% (only featureName has a description), so the description must compensate for the other parameters, but it doesn't. It provides no explanation of what 'content' should contain, the meaning of 'expectedRevision', or the purpose of 'expectedArtifactSha256'. Without this information, an agent cannot correctly construct a submission.

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 ('Submit') and resource ('design artifact'), which gives a basic idea of the operation. However, it doesn't clearly define what a design artifact is or how this tool differs from sibling tools like sdd-validate-design, which also deals with design. The lack of scope and sibling differentiation makes the purpose somewhat vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., running sdd-init or sdd-requirements first), nor does it indicate when validation or approval steps are needed. The description provides no usage context whatsoever.

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