create_frame

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely important trait — that the API does not associate nodes with frames, so grouping is cosmetic only — which prevents a costly misunderstanding. But it omits whether the frame is persisted, what is returned (no output schema exists), and whether coordinates are relative to the canvas origin.

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?

Two short sentences with the core definition front-loaded and the caveat second — no filler. The second sentence mixes a behavioral fact with an instruction, which is slightly muddled but still earns its space.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the definition is far too thin. It addresses one behavioral nuance well but leaves the agent guessing about parameter meaning, return value, and graph context.

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?

There are 9 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. It hints at positioning via 'colocalo alrededor' but says nothing about title (required), x/y defaults, width/height, color array format, or the graph/package scoping parameters.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Crea un frame') and immediately clarifies what a frame is conceptually — a purely visual grouping. It distinguishes the tool from node-creation siblings implicitly by describing frame semantics, though it never names an alternative like create_node or create_comment.

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 phrase 'colocalo alrededor de ellos' implies the intended workflow: draw a frame around existing nodes for visual grouping. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (does a graph need to be open?), and no reference to the sibling create_node or create_graph tools.

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