create_section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a section' implies a mutating operation, but the description does not state what the tool returns (no output schema exists), whether the section is auto-populated with selected content or created empty, or whether it becomes the active selection. Core behavioral details an agent needs post-invocation are absent.

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?

A single, efficient sentence with zero filler. The content is appropriately front-loaded: the action ('Create a section') comes first, followed by its purpose. It could arguably be slightly richer given the missing usage context, but as pure conciseness it is tight and well-ordered.

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 creation tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is underspecified. It does not cover return value, interaction with the current selection, relationship to frames/sections in Figma's hierarchy, or how it fits with sibling tools like set_parent or move_node. An agent cannot confidently predict the outcome of calling this tool.

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% (all five parameters are described in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond the schema's own field descriptions — no mention of coordinate units, origin reference, or how name is used. Since the schema already documents each field adequately, the description's silence is acceptable but not additive.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a section in Figma') and adds a purpose ('to group related content on the canvas'). This broadly distinguishes it from siblings like create_rectangle or create_text. However, it does not differentiate from create_frame, which also groups content in Figma, so the intent is clear but the boundary with the nearest sibling is fuzzy.

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 no guidance on when to use a section versus a frame or another container tool, despite create_frame being an obvious alternative for grouping content. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether it needs a selected node or a parent), nor any exclusion criteria. The usage context is entirely left to the agent to infer.

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