Create a storyboard

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds context annotations cannot: 'One undo step' (reversibility), editor support ('Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides'), and the shape of the returned diagnostics (panels starting off the beat, copy too brief to read). This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond the structured hints.

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, leading with the artifact and workflow before edge notes. It is a single long paragraph that packs a lot of distinct facts (cards, captions, timing, diagnostics, alternatives, skill, undo), which earns its length but is slightly heavy to parse in one block.

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 no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back (offBeat and readTime lists, styleframeId, snapped changes) and how to retry via idempotencyKey. For a 16-parameter write tool with 88% schema coverage, nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 88%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning and the baseline is 3. The description still adds value by explaining timing derivation: durations are snapped to frames, bar.beat derived from bpm/fps, and the duration caption doubles as the retime control. It stops short of covering every parameter but clearly exceeds the schema-only baseline.

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 ('Lay out a motion piece's storyboard') and immediately describes the concrete artifact: a board of cards in rows, one per panel, with thumbnails and caption rows. It distinguishes itself from close siblings by naming figma_set_keyframes and figma_create_animatic's domain (animation vs. planning), so an agent can tell it apart without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not: 'A plan, not an animation: figma_set_keyframes animates.' It also routes to figma_create_from_spec for sketching thumbnails and figma_get_guide for the storyboard skill, and warns to fix offBeat/readTime before building.

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