create_polygon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new polygon' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention permissions needed, whether this modifies existing documents, what happens on failure, or what the return value might be. For a creation tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it maximally concise while still being clear.

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 creation tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (return value), error conditions, or how this tool fits within the Figma editing workflow. The agent knows what the tool does but not the full context needed to use it effectively.

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 10 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, types, constraints, and required fields. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (like how x/y position relates to parentId) or provide usage examples. With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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') and resource ('polygon in Figma'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like create_rectangle, create_ellipse, or create_star, which all create different shapes in Figma. The description is specific about what it creates but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple shape-creation siblings (rectangle, ellipse, star, etc.), there's no indication of when a polygon is appropriate versus other shapes, nor any mention of prerequisites or contextual constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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