Create vector

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds editor-compatibility context (Design verified; FigJam/Slides unverified), which is genuinely behavioral and not in the annotations. It does not, however, describe placement/parenting behavior or what happens with the created node beyond creation.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then progressively adds parameter guidance, the alternative tool, and editor support. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description never claims to explain return values, which is appropriate. For a 13-parameter mutation tool with only 31% schema coverage it still leaves positioning/parenting and sizing semantics unexplained, but it covers purpose, key parameters, alternative routing, and editor scope well enough to call the tool correctly in the common case.

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 only 31%, so the description is expected to compensate. It does add real meaning for `path` (SVG `d` syntax and the allowed command letters), `width`/`height` scaling with aspect-ratio preservation, and stroke/fill interaction. But with 13 parameters, several (x, y, name, sizing, session, parentId, strokeWeight) get no semantic help, leaving the coverage gap only partially filled.

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 states a precise verb+resource - drawing an arbitrary shape from SVG path data - and illustrates it with concrete use cases (blob, wave divider, arrow, logo mark, chart line). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling figma_import_svg, so an agent can pick between the two without opening either 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?

It gives an explicit alternative with the condition that selects it: 'For a whole SVG file (an icon) use figma_import_svg.' It also states a usage rule for stroke-vs-fill ('Give `stroke` without `fill` for an open line') and notes which editors are verified vs unverified, so both the routing and the applicability are covered.

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