Create flowchart

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that server-side auto-layout is top-to-bottom, that shapes auto-size to labels, that each call is additive (new frame to the right of earlier charts), and that the figma-flow plugin must be running. These are non-obvious operational traits an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the essential constraint (structure only, no coordinates) before the detailed bullet guidance. Every sentence either constrains input or explains behavior; nothing is 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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition covers input shape, layout behavior, frame placement, and the plugin prerequisite. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real semantic value with modeling rules for node types and branching that go beyond field descriptions. Some content (e.g. labeling decision edges "Yes"/"No") duplicates the schema's own edge-label text, preventing a 5.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ("Draw a flowchart in the open Figma file") and immediately defines the input contract (structure only, no coordinates). An agent can distinguish this from draw_demo_flowchart or clear_canvas without inspecting the schema, and the title/frame behavior makes the output tangible.

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?

Gives rich when-to-use guidance in the form of modeling rules (start/end nodes, process vs input_output, decision phrasing) and a prerequisite check via get_status. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling draw_demo_flowchart or state when *not* to use it, which keeps it below a 5.

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