Conduit

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. Annotations already cover idempotency, non-destructive nature, and edge cases. The description only adds that it 'applies an effect style' and describes the return format. While not contradictory, it doesn't enrich understanding of how the tool behaves in practice beyond the structured annotations.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences: one stating the action and one describing the return format. There's no wasted verbiage, and the information is front-loaded. However, the return format description could be more efficiently integrated with the main purpose statement.

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 rich annotations (covering idempotency, edge cases, examples) and complete schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a mutation tool that changes visual properties, the description could better explain what 'applying an effect style' means in practical terms - whether it overrides existing effects, merges with them, or replaces them entirely.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, both parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics - it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid 'effect style' or 'node' beyond what the schema already states. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone.

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 ('Applies') and resource ('effect style to a node in Figma'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'set_effect' or 'set_node_style', which could have overlapping functionality. The description is specific about what it does but lacks sibling comparison context.

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 sibling tools like 'set_effect' and 'set_node_style' available, there's no indication whether this tool is for applying predefined styles versus custom effects, or what distinguishes it from other styling tools. The description assumes the user already knows when this specific tool is appropriate.

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