Conduit

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), but the description adds value by specifying the batch capability ('one or more') and hinting at the return format. However, it doesn't fully explain edge cases like name uniqueness constraints or how duplicates are handled, which annotations partially address with warnings.

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 in the first sentence, followed by return value details. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though the return format explanation could be slightly more integrated. Overall, it's efficient and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (batch creation with detailed parameters), annotations provide extensive behavioral context (idempotency, warnings), and the schema fully documents inputs. The description covers purpose and output, but lacks usage guidelines. With no output schema, the return format description is helpful but could be more detailed.

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 'gradients' parameter and its nested properties. The description only mentions 'one or more gradient style variables', which adds minimal semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. 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 ('one or more gradient style variables in Figma'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'set_gradient' by focusing on creating reusable style variables rather than applying gradients directly to nodes.

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 like 'set_gradient' or other style creation tools. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a Figma document open) or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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