Create paint style

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds constraints the annotations do not: 'Editors: Design only' and the behavioral consequence that a style has no size, so gradient `angle` is exact only on a square node. It stops short of describing return shape 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?

Front-loaded with the resource type, then dense but waste-free sentences covering binding, later editing, the gradient caveat and the editor restriction. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is padded.

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 9-parameter tool with nested gradient objects and no output schema, the description covers the essential calling decisions plus key caveats and alternatives. Minor gaps remain (where the style lands, name-collision behavior), but nothing an agent strictly needs in order to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 78%, so the schema does much of the work, but the description adds real meaning beyond it: it explains that `variableId`/`variableName` binds the FIRST paint's colour to a COLOR variable (a behavioral link not visible in the schema), and it flags the `fills`/gradient-angle caveat. It does not add meaning for name, session, opacity or idempotencyKey.

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 nails the resource and type: 'A local PAINT style', which cleanly separates it from figma_create_text_style, figma_create_effect_style and figma_create_grid_style. The creation verb is implied rather than stated (it opens with a noun phrase, not 'Creates...'), so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

It routes the agent explicitly to alternatives with conditions: use figma_update_style to change the style later in place, and use figma_set_fills (or pass `transform`) when an exact CSS angle on a known node is needed, because a style has no size. That is precise when-to-use / when-to-use-something-else guidance.

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