Create stickies (FigJam)

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

Annotations already cover safety (idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds substantial extra behavior: Rows are laid out after text is measured so they never overlap, the parent is never resized and `parentOverflow` reports the overrun (routing to figma_fit_sections), and the editor/verification limitation is disclosed. These are non-obvious consequences an agent would otherwise discover only by testing.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: count range and grid layout come first, then sizing, color, layout knobs, overflow, and return shape. Most sentences carry unique facts, though the run-on construction around sizing and `wide` could be tightened without losing information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description documents the return payload (created [{ index, id, x, y, width, height }] and bounds), which is exactly the gap that would otherwise be missing. Combined with editor constraints, overflow signaling, and layout rules, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 88%, so the schema already documents most parameters and the baseline would be 3. The description still adds value: it clarifies that stickies are fixed-size (no width/height), that color names resolve to FigJam's exact swatches, and that `columns`/`gap` interact with the auto-measured layout rather than raw coordinates.

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 and resource (create FigJam sticky notes) plus the batch scope (1–200 per call). It actively distinguishes itself from siblings like figma_create_text by asserting 'Prompts, labels and instructions are text, not stickies,' so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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 real selection guidance: use `wide` for about 100 words or more, and the note that prose belongs in text tools implicitly routes to figma_create_text. Also flags the 'Editors: FigJam only, unverified' constraint. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool or stating when not to use it at all.

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