Conduit

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

Annotations provide rich behavioral context (e.g., idempotentHint, destructiveHint, edgeCaseWarnings), so the description's bar is lower. It adds value by clarifying the return format ('Returns: - content: Array of objects...'), which isn't covered in annotations. 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. However, the return format section could be more concise, and the listing of optional parameters is somewhat redundant with the schema. Overall, it's efficient but has minor verbosity.

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 (creation with multiple parameters) and rich annotations (covering safety, idempotency, edge cases), the description is mostly complete. It lacks output schema, but describes return values. It could improve by addressing sibling differentiation or more detailed usage scenarios, but it's adequate for the context.

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 adds minimal semantics beyond the schema by listing optional parameters ('name, a parent node ID, fill color, stroke color, and stroke weight'), but doesn't provide additional context like format details or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 action ('Creates one or more polygons in Figma') and resource ('polygons'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_rectangle' or 'create_ellipse' beyond the polygon-specific nature, which is implied but not stated.

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 implied usage by mentioning the option for single vs. batch creation ('Accepts either a single polygon config... or an array of configs'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_rectangle' or 'create_vector'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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