figjam_create_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the key non-obvious behavior: creating a section does not automatically parent elements; you must set coordinates within its bounds and call section.appendChild(node). It also implies a node is returned. What it omits is where the section lands if x/y are omitted, and whether creation requires edit permissions or is undoable.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, definition second, workflow note last and visually flagged. Every sentence earns its place, and the operational caveat is separated from the core statement rather than buried.

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 6-parameter, all-optional creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is created and the subsequent parenting step. The one remaining gap is the return value — the workflow depends on receiving a section node, but the description never states that the created section (or its id) is returned.

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%, so every parameter (x, y, name, width, height, fillColor) is already documented with ranges, defaults and hex pattern; the description adds nothing parameter-specific. The coordinate discussion in the note refers to child elements, not to this tool's own x/y semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a section on a FigJam board') and immediately defines what a section is ('containers that can hold other elements'), which disambiguates it from siblings like figjam_create_shape_with_text or figjam_create_sticky. An agent can tell exactly what this produces without opening the schema.

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?

'Use for grouping related content' gives a clear usage condition, and the note explains the required follow-up workflow (position children, then appendChild via figma_execute). However, no alternative or exclusion is named — e.g. nothing says whether to prefer figjam_auto_arrange or a shape-with-text container instead — so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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