Create frame

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: auto-layout hugging on unsized axes, sizing:fill inheriting parent column width, wrapping rowGap defaulting to gap, and content not clipped unless clipsContent is true. It is solid, though it does not cover return behavior or failure modes.

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 core concept, then progressively details layout, sizing, wrapping, clipping, and naming. Dense but every sentence carries usable information; the editor-support clause is the least essential but still useful for scope-setting.

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 20-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the dominant workflows and defaults (sizing, wrap, clipping, background). Gaps remain around validation/error behavior and how it interacts with downstream styling tools, but the essential calling context is present.

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 high (85%), so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by tying parameters together (layout/gap/padding/alignX/alignY for auto-layout, rowGap needing wrap and defaulting to gap, sizing:fill semantics). It adds cross-parameter meaning rather than merely restating individual field docs.

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 (create a frame) and explains its role as the structural building block, with concrete composition guidance ('one frame per section, row or card'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like figma_create_rectangle, figma_create_section, or figma_create_from_spec, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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 context for use: build designs step by step, add content via parentId, and a note that editors are Design with FigJam/Slides unverified. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming the alternative creation tools for plain shapes or sections.

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