Create a new UI pattern

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention what happens on duplicate ids, whether components must already exist, whether the operation is idempotent, or what validation is performed. For a write operation, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repeated schema details. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to the lack of behavioral and parameter context.

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?

A 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs substantially more context. The description omits return behavior, required fields, validation, uniqueness semantics, and relationships between parameters, leaving the agent under-equipped to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only vaguely maps to the 'components' field by saying patterns are composed of components. It gives no guidance on required id/name constraints, status enum values, design structure, or the meaning of fields like layoutRules and compositionRules.

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, 'Register', and a clear resource, 'brand-new higher-level UI pattern composed of one or more components.' This distinguishes it from sibling create tools for components and tokens by emphasizing the pattern-level scope.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like registry_update_pattern or registry_create_component. It explains what the tool does but not the conditions or exclusions that should drive selection.

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