insert_svg

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the SVG will be converted to Figma vector nodes, which is useful. However, it does not mention any side effects, authorization requirements, or constraints on SVG complexity, which would be valuable for an agent to know.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the action and purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks context on how parameters like x, y, size, and parentId influence the insertion. For example, it doesn't mention that parentId determines where the SVG is placed or that size scales the SVG. This omission could lead to incorrect usage.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides. It does contextualize the overall operation (conversion to vector nodes) but does not explain how parameters like 'size' or 'parentId' affect the result.

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?

Description clearly states it inserts an SVG string into Figma and converts it to vector nodes. It's specific about the input (SVG markup) and the use case (creating icons). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_ellipse or create_frame, which would create shapes from parameters rather than SVG.

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 description provides a usage hint ('Use this to create icons from SVG markup'), indicating when to use the tool. But it does not specify when not to use it or mention any alternative tools among the siblings, leaving the agent to infer without explicit guidance.

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