create_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation (create/convert) but does not state what happens to the original node when converting—whether it is modified, replaced, or left intact—nor does it mention reversibility or side effects. For a mutation tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately offers the alternative conversion mode. There is zero filler; every word contributes to comprehension.

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?

For a tool with nine parameters, one required, and no output schema or annotations, the description is under-specified. It doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., whether fromNodeId supersedes x/y), what the return value is, or any prerequisites for conversion. An agent cannot fully determine correct invocation without more detail about the conversion mode's behavior and parameter relationships.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters. The description adds the conceptual context of 'master' and the conversion mode, which indirectly clarifies fromNodeId and the creation path, but it does not add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds only marginal value.

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 specific verb-resource pair ('Create a reusable Figma component master') and adds an alternative mode ('convert an existing frame/node into a component'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_component_instance (instance vs master) and create_frame (generic frame), giving an agent immediate orientation.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: to create a master component or convert an existing node. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for creating instances) or name alternatives such as create_component_instance. The sibling differentiation is implied by the word 'master' but not spelled out, leaving some room for misrouting.

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