figjam_create_sticky

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses only the file-type restriction. It says nothing about what happens when x/y are omitted (auto-placement?), whether the sticky lands on the current page or viewport, what permissions are needed, or whether it is trivially reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 core statement is front-loaded in the first sentence and the FigJam restriction follows immediately, with no filler. The color enumeration partly repeats the schema's enum list, a minor redundancy against an otherwise tight block.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description needn't explain return values, and the tool is simple with four flat parameters. Still, it leaves the default behavior of the optional x/y coordinates and the effect of the call on the board unaddressed, which is the main thing an agent would wonder about before invoking.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description earns extra credit by surfacing the YELLOW default for `color`, which the enum in the schema does not express. It adds little else about `text` or the x/y positioning semantics, so it stops short of a 5.

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 sticky note") and adds a real scope constraint ("Only works in FigJam files"), which lets an agent immediately rule it out for Figma design files. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling `figjam_create_stickies`, so the singular-vs-batch distinction is left for the agent to infer from the names alone.

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 FigJam-only restriction is genuinely useful gating information, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over `figjam_create_stickies` (bulk) or `figjam_create_shape_with_text`, nor any prerequisite such as requiring an open FigJam file. Usage is implied by the environment constraint rather than stated as a routing rule.

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