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, edgeCaseWarnings), and the description adds value by explaining the return format ('Array of objects... with the created rectangle node ID(s)') and optional parameters like name, parentId, and corner radius. It does not contradict annotations, enhancing transparency beyond the structured data.

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 core purpose, followed by parameter details and return format. It uses two sentences efficiently, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the return format more seamlessly.

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 covers the tool's purpose, parameter options, and return values, supported by annotations that add usage examples and edge cases. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus siblings, slightly reducing 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 marginal value by mentioning the choice between single config ('rectangle') or array ('rectangles') and optional parameters like name, parentId, and corner radius, but does not provide significant additional semantics beyond what the schema covers.

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 the resource 'rectangle shape nodes in the specified Figma document', specifying it can create one or multiple rectangles. It distinguishes from siblings like create_ellipse or create_frame by focusing on rectangles, making the purpose specific and well-differentiated.

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 for creating rectangle shapes in Figma documents, with annotations providing extra context like 'Useful for generating UI elements, backgrounds, or design primitives programmatically'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_button or create_frame) or provide clear exclusions, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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