Create rectangle

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The editor-compatibility note is genuine extra context not derivable from annotations, but the description says nothing about where the new node lands, permissions needed, or whether it fails outside Design — gaps for a creation tool.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the property summary is front-loaded ahead of the platform note. The first sentence is a noun fragment rather than a statement of action, which costs a little clarity but not length.

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 13-parameter creation tool with no output schema and sparse schema descriptions, the description is far too thin: it does not say what is returned (e.g. the created node id), where the rectangle is placed by default, or how required width/height interact with x/y. The context an agent needs to call this correctly is largely 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 description coverage is only 31% across 13 parameters. The description names three (fill, corner radius, stroke), which roughly repeats schema names rather than explaining them, and is silent on x/y coordinate semantics, parentId, sizing, name defaults, and units — the areas where the schema provides no description at all.

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 name supplies the verb (create) and the description supplies the resource's properties (fill, corner radius, stroke), so the intent is recoverable. But the description itself is a noun fragment with no verb or scope statement, and it does nothing to separate this from its many shape siblings (figma_create_ellipse, figma_create_frame, figma_create_shapes_with_text).

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 only usage-adjacent content is 'Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides', which is platform availability, not when-to-use guidance. There is no statement of when to pick this over figma_create_frame, figma_create_from_spec, or figma_import_svg, and no prerequisites (e.g. must a parent/page be selected first).

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