Draw demo flowchart

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the prerequisite that a Figma file must already be open and that the call has side effects on that document ('draw ... in the open Figma file'). It does not say what is added, whether existing canvas content is preserved or clobbered, or what happens if no file is open.

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, no filler, with the action and its target front-loaded before the justification. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema demo helper, the description covers what it draws, where it draws it, and why you would call it. The remaining gap is failure behavior when no file is open and whether the drawing pollutes an existing canvas.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly implies the only input is the ambient open-file state.

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 sample login flowchart into the open Figma file. The word 'sample' plus 'demo' in the name signals it is a smoke-test artifact rather than a real diagram, which is the key distinction from the sibling create_flowchart. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'Useful to check the setup works end to end' gives a clear when-to-use condition tied to verification. There is no when-not guidance and no explicit routing to create_flowchart for real diagrams or to clear_canvas to remove the demo artifact, both of which an agent would want to know given the sibling set.

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