create_frame

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full burden. It explicitly states that the tool creates a new frame, which implies mutation. While it does not detail permission requirements or side effects, the absence of such context is common for create operations. It adds value by clarifying that it can be a container or artboard. However, it lacks details on canvas placement behavior, which might be inferred from parameters.

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?

The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core action and resource. It includes a clarifying parenthetical that adds specificity without waste. Every word earns its place.

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 8 optional parameters but no required ones, the description gives a general sense of what it does but doesn't explain when some parameters are needed (e.g., name, fill, cornerRadius). However, with a 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential context. It could be more complete by explaining common usage patterns, but it is adequate for a create operation.

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 schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The tool description itself does not add semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. Since coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not clarify parameter relationships or dependencies, but the schema covers each parameter's purpose.

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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'frame', and elaborates with 'container or artboard' and 'on the Figma canvas'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_rectangle, create_text, or create_section, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives. However, the context is clear: it is for creating frames as containers or artboards, which implies usage for layout structure. Sibling tools like create_component or create_component_instance have different purposes, but no explicit exclusion is provided. This is a clear but not exhaustive guidance.

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