create_responsive_variant

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 only says 'create...variants' without explaining whether the source frame is modified, whether new frames are created, how breakpoints map to variants, or what side effects occur. The behavior is underspecified for a 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. The core action and resource are front-loaded, making it easy to scan. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 many closely related siblings and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'variants' means operationally, what nodes are created, or how the tool relates to convert_to_responsive and generate_mobile. An agent would need additional information to invoke it confidently.

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 both parameters. The description adds the device-type context ('mobile/tablet/desktop') that loosely maps to the breakpoints default, but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('variants of a frame'), naming the three device types. It is clear what the tool does at a basic level. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as convert_to_responsive, generate_mobile, or set_breakpoint, so some ambiguity remains.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like convert_to_responsive, generate_mobile, or stack_for_mobile. The description gives no context about selection criteria, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

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