Create sticky notes

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 states the tool 'adds' stickies and describes their nature, but it doesn't disclose important behaviors such as defaults (position, color, wide variant), effects on existing elements, or whether the operation is append-only. It also fails to mention any side effects, permissions, or return behavior.

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 two sentences: a clear action statement followed by context for tool selection. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every sentence earns its place. No filler or redundancy.

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 gives a strong sense of purpose and tool applicability, but it lacks completeness for a creation tool with nested parameters and no output schema. It doesn't explain defaults (position, color), constraints (maxItems), or what happens to existing content. The schema covers param details, but behavioral and output context 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?

The description mentions no parameters, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The schema itself provides rich descriptions for each property (x, y, text, wide, color, parentId), but the description adds no additional meaning or context. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Add one or more sticky notes.' It uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('sticky notes'). It also differentiates from sibling tools like create_texts by noting that stickies are the native FigJam unit for ideas, votes, and retro items and should be preferred over text nodes for draggable content.

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 provides clear usage context: 'prefer them over text nodes for anything a human might want to drag around.' This explicitly guides the agent when to choose this tool over an alternative (create_texts). It doesn't list exclusions, but the guidance is actionable and sufficient for most cases.

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