create_component_instance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action ('Create an instance') but does not reveal side effects (e.g., whether the new instance gets selected, what coordinate system x/y refers to, or what happens if componentKey is invalid). This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 that immediately states the tool's purpose. It contains no filler or redundancy, earning full marks for efficiency.

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?

Despite low complexity (3 simple parameters, no output schema), the description lacks important contextual information. It does not mention the need for a componentKey from a valid component, the coordinate system for x/y, or what the tool returns after creation. Since annotations are absent, the description should carry more weight, but it remains too thin to be considered complete.

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?

The input schema provides full coverage (100%) with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. The parameter descriptions are adequate but minimal, and the tool description does not enrich them further.

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 action ('Create') and the specific resource ('an instance of a component'), with context ('in Figma'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_rectangle or create_frame, which target different object types.

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 implies its usage situation—when you need to instantiate a component—but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over other creation tools, nor does it note any prerequisites such as obtaining a valid componentKey from get_local_components. No alternatives are named, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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