create_section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a Figma Section' and gives a purpose; it does not mention side effects, whether it mutates the canvas, how childNodeIds affect existing nodes, coordinate defaults, or any prerequisites. For a creation tool with no annotation coverage, this is a meaningful 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource ('Create a Figma Section') and immediately follows with the purpose, making it easy to scan.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin to be fully self-sufficient. It does not explain how a Section differs behaviorally from a Frame, how childNodeIds populate the section, or what happens when x/y are omitted. The schema covers parameter definitions but not the operational context needed for correct invocation.

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%, with each of the 7 parameters individually described (e.g., 'Optional array of frame/node IDs to place inside this section'). The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Create a Figma Section') and gives a concrete purpose: 'to organize related artboards, user journeys, or screen flows on the canvas.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like create_frame, create_rectangle, or create_component by naming the object type and its organizational role.

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 offers a clear context for use: when you want to organize related artboards, user journeys, or screen flows. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the stated purpose is sufficient for an agent to select it over generic frame/rectangle creation in most cases.

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