Create connectors (FigJam)

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

Annotations only cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive/openWorld; the description adds non-obvious behavior the annotations cannot convey: connectors are created in their final parent (lowest shared section, else page), are never moved, and reparenting leaves stale elbows — hence build last. It also documents default cap behavior and default lineType, which materially affects the result.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and batch limit, then endpoints, then defaults. Dense but each clause carries information; the main inefficiency is restating the endpoint syntax and lineType/cap defaults already present in the schema. Hedges like 'to be confirmed' and 'unverified' are appropriately honest rather than filler.

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?

No output schema, but the description covers the parent-placement semantics, the endpoint grammar, cap/lineType defaults, and points to the edit sibling for later changes; idempotencyKey retry semantics live in the schema. Return-value behavior is not described, but for a create tool that is a minor gap.

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 75%, and the description supplies the critical endpoint mini-language ("12:34", "12:34@right", "12:34@0.5,1", free point "120,340") plus the constraint that an end may not be another connector. Defaults for lineType and caps are repeated from the schema, so it adds real value but some redundancy.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('FigJam connector lines between nodes'), quantifies batch capacity (1–200 per call), and names the sibling figma_edit_connectors for the modify path. An agent can distinguish this from figma_create_line, figma_create_vector, and figma_edit_connectors without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear routing guidance: build connectors last (because reparented connectors keep stale elbows), and use figma_edit_connectors to change one later. It also flags the environment constraint (FigJam only, unverified). No explicit when-not-to-use statement, so it stops short of 5.

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