Conduit

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the return format ('Returns: content: Array of objects...') and clarifying the input options (single vs. array). Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false) and idempotency, but the description provides useful operational details without contradicting annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by parameter details and return information. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the corner radius explanation could be more concise. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, input options, return format, and key parameter details. However, it could benefit from more explicit usage guidelines or error handling context, though annotations partially cover this with edge case warnings.

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?

The description adds some parameter semantics by listing optional properties (name, parentId, fill color, etc.) and explaining corner radius formats, but the input schema has 100% description coverage and already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description provides marginal value beyond the schema, meeting 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 ('one or more frame nodes in the specified Figma document'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_rectangle or create_ellipse by specifying it creates frame nodes specifically. It also mentions the batch creation capability, which adds specificity.

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 by mentioning the tool creates frame nodes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_rectangle or create_component_instance. The annotations provide extra context about generating UI containers, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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