create_paint_style

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It explains the folder notation for grouping but does not disclose what happens on name collision, whether styles are local or library-level, or any side effects. Creation behavior is implied but under-specified.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no fluff. The folder notation example is practical and 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?

The description covers purpose and naming organization, but for a tool with no annotations and no output schema, it misses behavioral context like duplicate handling and relationships to sibling tools. Adequate for a simple creation tool but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described, including the folder notation for 'name'. The description repeats the same example without adding new parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the resource as 'color style (paint style) in Figma', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like apply_paint_style or create_color_variable. The naming convention example further clarifies the tool's purpose.

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?

Usage is implied: create a single paint style. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_multiple_paint_styles or create_color_variable, nor does it mention exclusions. The folder notation tip is helpful but not about tool selection.

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