Conduit

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the return format ('Array of objects' with 'type' and 'text' fields containing JSON strings), which isn't covered by annotations. Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), idempotentHint=true, and edge cases, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. 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 highly efficient: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence clearly describes the return format. Every word earns its place with no redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the main action. The structure separates purpose from output details cleanly.

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 (batch conversion with nested objects) and rich annotations (covering idempotency, destructiveness, edge cases), the description is mostly complete. It adds return format details, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, it could briefly mention the batch nature hinted in annotations but not explicitly in the description.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'entries' array structure or 'skip_errors' behavior). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden, and the description adds no extra param semantics.

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 specific action ('converts one or more existing nodes into components') and resource ('in Figma'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_component_instance (which creates instances from existing components) or create_button/rectangle/etc. (which create new elements from scratch). The verb 'converts' precisely captures the transformation from nodes to components.

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 converting existing nodes to reusable components, which suggests it's for design system workflows. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like create_component_instance (for instantiating existing components) or when not to use it (e.g., if nodes are already components). The annotations provide edge case warnings but no direct comparison guidance.

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