Conduit

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

The description adds some behavioral context by specifying the return format (array of objects with type 'text'), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this operation modifies existing nodes or creates new ones, what happens to original nodes, or any permission requirements. The annotations provide minimal information (just schema structure), so the description carries significant burden.

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 perfectly concise with two focused sentences: one stating the purpose and one describing the return format. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 this is a node manipulation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description provides basic purpose and return format but lacks important context about how boolean operations work in Figma, what nodes are affected, whether this is destructive, and how it relates to sibling tools. For a tool performing potentially complex geometric operations, more guidance would be helpful.

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 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space explaining non-existent parameters, though it could potentially mention that boolean operations are performed on selected nodes or through some other implicit mechanism.

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 tool performs boolean operations (union, subtract, intersect, exclude) on Figma nodes, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'join' or 'flatten_node' which might have overlapping functionality in node manipulation contexts.

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 'join', 'flatten_node', and various node manipulation tools, there's no indication of when boolean operations are preferred over other approaches for combining or modifying nodes.

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