create_frame

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one genuinely non-obvious behavior: auto-layout is applied automatically even if not explicitly requested. However, it stops short of describing what the 'design-intelligent defaults' actually are, where the frame lands by default, or what the call returns — all significant for a 19-parameter creation tool.

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 short sentences with no wasted words; the core purpose is front-loaded and the differentiating behavior (auto-layout defaults) follows immediately. 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?

For a 19-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits return value / node-ID chaining information, the meaning of 'design-intelligent defaults', and guidance on choosing between create_frame and specialized siblings. It is minimally viable because the inline schema covers most parameter semantics, but an agent still cannot predict side effects or chain the result.

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 of 3 applies; the schema already documents all 19 parameters including enums, 8px grid snapping, and hug-contents behavior. The description adds only the vague 'design-intelligent defaults' phrase, which gestures at but does not specify parameter behavior beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Create a frame') and clarifies scope with parenthetical synonyms (screen, section, card, container), helping an agent recognize valid use cases. The auto-layout note hints at differentiation from non-container siblings like create_rectangle, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from specialized siblings such as create_section or create_card_grid.

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 phrase 'Automatically applies auto-layout with design-intelligent defaults' implies this is the choice when an agent wants a smart container, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It never names an alternative (e.g., create_section, create_rectangle, set_auto_layout) or states exclusions, leaving routing decisions to inference.

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