figma_create_child

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the parent-container invariant and mentions cleanup of empty or orphaned nodes on failure, but it omits permissions, return behavior, and whether cleanup itself is destructive.

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 four short sentences, front-loads the purpose, and then adds constraints and failure behavior. Every sentence contributes useful guidance with no 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?

It gives enough information to invoke the tool correctly with a valid parent and node type, and the nested properties are fully documented in the schema. Minor gaps remain around the return value and the exact cleanup semantics, but the core call requirements are covered.

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, but the description adds meaningful parentId semantics by requiring the parent to be a Section or Frame rather than any node. It does not add further detail for the nested properties, but the schema already documents those.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: create a new child node inside a parent container. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling creation or cloning tools such as figma_clone_node or figma_create_component_set.

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?

It states a strong usage constraint: the parent must be an existing Section or Frame and never a bare page. It also gives a fallback action, creating a Section first, but does not explicitly compare to alternative sibling tools.

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