create_card_grid

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, but it only promises an outcome quality ('proper spacing and alignment'). It does not disclose where the grid is created (current page? selected frame?), whether it produces a grouped frame or freestanding cards, what happens when no cards are passed, or whether existing nodes are affected. For a node-creating tool this is a significant transparency 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 ten-word sentence that is front-loaded and contains zero filler. Every word contributes. It loses a point because the sentence is efficient but thin — it does not earn its place with the kind of scoping or routing information a richer description would carry.

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 4 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. An agent cannot tell where the grid lands, what node structure is produced, whether it is idempotent, or what happens on empty input. The creation context (parentId behavior, selection fallback) is entirely undresolved, and no sibling is referenced to disambiguate the design intent.

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; each parameter (cards, columns, parentId, brandColor) is already documented in the schema. The description adds only loose contextual meaning ('grid,' 'spacing' imply columns and card layout) but no format, default, or relationship detail beyond the schema. It neither compensates for gaps nor harms the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a grid of cards'), making the core function clear. It is distinguishable from the many sibling shape-creation tools (create_rectangle, create_text) since 'grid of cards' is a composite layout artifact. It falls short of a 5 because it does not specify what a 'card' structurally is or how this differs from composite creation siblings like create_frame or create_section.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, and no sibling is referenced. Among roughly 200 siblings including create_frame, create_section, and create_icon, an agent gets no criteria for choosing create_card_grid over a manual frame-plus-card assembly. The implied usage (pass cards and columns) must be inferred entirely from the schema.

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