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. It doesn't explain what happens on creation (e.g., whether the section is selected, whether it is placed on the current page, whether it overlays existing content), nor does it mention any side effects or coordinate system context. The description only states what is created, not the behavioral implications.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource. It communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words or repetition.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent invoking this tool would benefit from knowing whether the section is created at a root level or inside a selected frame, what happens to the current selection, and how coordinates are interpreted. The tool has 5 parameters and 4 required, but the description covers only the high-level purpose, leaving important contextual gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add details about coordinate system origin, units, or how name is used beyond what the schema says. Since the schema fully documents each parameter, the description doesn't need to add much, but it also doesn't clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., whether width/height are absolute canvas coordinates or dimensions).

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 clearly states the action ('Create a section in Figma') with a specific resource and purpose ('group related content on the canvas'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_frame and create_rectangle by naming the 'section' resource specifically, which is a distinct Figma object type.

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 implies the tool is for grouping related content, which gives some context for when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose create_section over create_frame or create_rectangle, nor does it mention any prerequisites like needing an active document or selection. The context is implied rather than explicit.

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