create_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'create', which implies mutation but doesn't disclose side effects like where the node is placed, whether it requires a current page, how parentId affects behavior, or any default styling. This is insufficient for a tool with 8 parameters.

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 one short sentence with no filler words or redundancy. It is concise and front-loaded, stating exactly the action and object. There is no unnecessary elaboration, which is ideal for a simple tool description.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far too minimal. It doesn't explain coordinate system, default font size, how parentId works, or what the tool returns. The description alone is inadequate for an agent to successfully invoke the tool in varied contexts.

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 schema already documents all parameters (e.g., 'X position', 'Y position', 'Text content'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but per the rubric, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't compensate for any gaps but doesn't need to given the schema's coverage.

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 'Create a new text element in Figma' clearly states the action (create) and resource (text element), which is specific enough to convey the tool's basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like create_rectangle or set_text_content, only implying a difference through the word 'text'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios where create_rectangle or set_text_content would be preferred, nor does it explain prerequisites like needing a parent node or document context. The description simply states what it does, leaving usage entirely implied.

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