Create section

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: platform verification status across Design/FigJam/Slides and the untitled-section behavior when `name` is empty.

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?

The conceptual definition is front-loaded before the alternative and the editor caveat, and every sentence carries information. The 'white wrapper, zones inside it, cards inside those' clause is slightly verbose but earns its place by conveying FigJam structural nesting.

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?

With 10 optional params at 90% schema coverage and no output schema, the description fills the important gaps: what a section is, how it nests, when to prefer create_from_spec, and platform support. An agent can call it correctly without more prose.

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 90%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by explaining that `name: ""` deliberately leaves the section untitled when an inner title text carries the label, and by interpreting `parentId` as allowing another section (nesting), adding semantics the schema only hints at.

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 defines the resource concretely (a section as the container designers use to organise a page by flow, and on FigJam the structural wrapper) and clarifies the nesting model via `parentId` = another section. It clearly distinguishes itself from figma_create_from_spec, though it never explicitly contrasts with sibling creators like figma_create_frame.

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 gives an explicit routing rule: to fill a section and fit it to content in one call, use figma_create_from_spec with `arrange` and `hug`. It also flags editor compatibility (Design confirmed; FigJam/Slides unverified), which helps an agent decide whether to attempt the call. No explicit 'when not to use' for the plain-section case, but the alternative is named.

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