Conduit

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and edgeCaseWarnings, but the description adds valuable context: it specifies the return format (array of objects with type 'text' and instance IDs), which isn't covered by annotations. This disclosure of output behavior helps the agent understand what to expect from the operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter guidance and return format. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second clarifies parameter usage, and the third describes the output. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 (creation operation with batch support), annotations cover safety and edge cases, and the description adds output details. However, without an output schema, the description's return format explanation is helpful but could be more detailed (e.g., structure of the text field). It's mostly complete but has minor gaps in output documentation.

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 the two parameters (entry and entries). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the single vs. batch creation distinction, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about the parameters. This meets the baseline for 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 verb ('Creates') and resource ('component instances in Figma'), specifying it can handle single or multiple entries. It distinguishes from siblings like create_components_from_node (which creates components from nodes) and create_button/rectangle/etc. (which create specific element types).

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 implies usage for creating component instances, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like create_components_from_node or create_button. It mentions the entry/entries parameter choice, which provides some operational guidance, but lacks explicit when/when-not scenarios or sibling tool comparisons.

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