Create effect style

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/destructive/idempotent, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the style is 'local' (not a library style), it is mutable in place via figma_update_style, and the permission gate 'Editors: Design only' is a genuine prerequisite disclosure. It still says nothing about what is returned or duplicate-name 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?

Four short, telegraphic sentences with no filler, and the resource identity leads. The fragmentary first sentence ('A local effect style ...') reads like a note rather than a definition, slightly weakening front-loading but not enough to waste space.

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?

For a creation tool with a large nested effects schema, no output schema, and existing annotations, the description covers the key relationships and permission gate. It omits what the call returns (e.g. the style handle needed for figma_apply_style_to_node) and name-collision/error behavior, leaving a visible gap in an otherwise adequate definition.

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 60%, so the schema documents several params (session, description, idempotencyKey, and most effect fields). The description's 'Same effect entries as figma_set_effects' is a valuable cross-reference for the complex 16-item effects array, but it adds nothing for name/description/session and doesn't fully compensate for the uncovered remainder.

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?

It names the concrete resource (a local effect style, for shadows and blurs) and distinguishes itself implicitly from the paint/text/grid style creators. It stops short of a clean verb-first statement, opening with a noun phrase rather than 'Creates...', but an agent can still identify the artifact unambiguously.

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 routes the agent downstream ('nodes can then follow via figma_apply_style_to_node') and to the mutator ('change it later in place with figma_update_style'), which is useful related-tool framing. It never states when to choose this over figma_create_paint_style / figma_create_text_style / figma_create_grid_style, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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