Conduit

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the return format ('Array of objects... with the created ellipse node ID(s)'), which isn't covered by annotations. While annotations provide edge case warnings and idempotency hints, the description complements this with output structure details, though it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs.

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 efficiently structured: first sentence states the core purpose, second explains the parameter options, third lists optional parameters, and fourth clearly describes the return format. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse.

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?

For a creation tool with rich annotations (idempotentHint, edge case warnings) but no output schema, the description provides good completeness by explaining the return format. It covers the essential what, how, and output, though it could benefit from more explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools.

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, the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the optional parameters (name, parent ID, colors, stroke weight) but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema. 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 specific action ('Creates one or more ellipse nodes') and resource ('in the specified Figma document'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_rectangle or create_polygon that create different shape types. It precisely defines the tool's function without being tautological.

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 through parameter explanation (single vs. array configs) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_rectangle or create_vector. The annotations provide extra context about batch creation efficiency, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance on tool selection scenarios.

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