Conduit

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

Annotations provide rich behavioral context (e.g., readOnlyHint: false, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false, edgeCaseWarnings), but the description adds value by specifying the return format ('Array of objects... with the created line node ID(s)'), which isn't covered in annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations, and it complements them with output details, though it could mention more about batch efficiency as hinted in extraInfo.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by input details and return format. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (creation tool with nested objects) and rich annotations (covering safety, idempotency, edge cases), the description is mostly complete. It explains the action, input options, and return values, but lacks an output schema, so it compensates by describing returns. However, it could integrate more from annotations (e.g., batch efficiency) for full completeness.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning the input options ('line' or 'lines') and optional parameters, but it doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 line nodes in the specified Figma document'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_rectangle or create_ellipse by specifying it's for lines. It also mentions the dual input options (single line vs array), making the purpose specific and well-defined.

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 clear context for usage by mentioning the input options (single line or array) and optional parameters like parent node ID, stroke color, and stroke weight. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_vector or create_polygon, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites, keeping it from a perfect score.

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