create_multiple_paint_styles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation creates multiple styles atomically ('at once') and that slash notation enables folder grouping. However, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing styles, error handling, or return behavior. This partial disclosure merits a moderate score.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences that front-load the core purpose first and then provide a practical usage tip. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one array parameter, fully described in the schema) and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context: what it does (creates multiple styles at once) and how to use naming for grouping. It does not explain return values or failure modes, but for a batch creation with no outputs specified, this is a reasonable level of completeness.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, but the description adds semantic value beyond the schema by explicitly explaining that '/' in names creates folder grouping. This directly enriches the meaning of the 'name' parameter, going beyond the baseline set by the schema's example (which includes a slash but does not explain its grouping function).

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 tool's function: 'Create multiple color styles (paint styles) in Figma at once.' The verb 'Create' with a specific resource ('multiple color styles') and the qualifier 'at once' distinguish it from the singular `create_paint_style` and other sibling tools like `apply_paint_style` or `get_styles`.

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 gives a specific usage tip: 'Use folder notation with '/' in names for grouping.' However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over `create_paint_style` or other alternatives. The 'at once' implies batch usage, but the guidance is implied rather than explicit, warranting a mid-range score.

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