Conduit

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

Annotations provide rich behavioral info (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, edgeCaseWarnings). The description adds value by specifying the tool creates a 'complete button with background and text' and details the return format (array with node IDs), which isn't covered in annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and return details in the second. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, though the return format explanation could be slightly more concise. Every sentence adds value.

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 (13 parameters, nested objects) and rich annotations (covering safety, idempotency, edge cases), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and the return format, though it lacks output schema. However, it doesn't fully address usage context or sibling differentiation, leaving minor gaps.

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 fully documents all 13 parameters. The description adds minimal param semantics by listing customizable attributes (size, text, colors, font, corner radius, name, parent node) but doesn't provide syntax or format details beyond what the schema already specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Creates a complete button') and resources ('in Figma'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_rectangle or create_frame by specifying it creates a button with both background and text. It goes beyond just restating the name/title.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like create_rectangle (for simpler shapes) or create_component_instance (for reusable components), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a valid Figma document or parent node. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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