Create a design screen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the operation creates a screen via the active host, but it does not disclose side effects, permission or host-availability requirements, name-uniqueness behavior, or what happens if no active host is available.

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 a single sentence with no filler and is front-loaded with the core action. However, for a 7-parameter create operation with no schema descriptions, this brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and a rich sibling set, the one-line description is not sufficient. It does not explain return values, active-host prerequisites, relationship to design.create_component, or the semantics of the nested background object.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. None of the seven parameters (x, y, host, name, width, height, background) are explained beyond what the bare schema names imply, leaving the agent to infer geometry units, coordinate origin, and host meaning.

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 an artboard/screen'. The qualifier 'through the active design host adapter' adds context and helps distinguish this from siblings like create_component, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only context hint is 'active design host adapter', but it does not explain how to verify or select a host, nor when to choose this tool over design.create_component or other sibling tools.

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