Conduit

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and not idempotent (idempotentHint: false), which the description aligns with by using 'creates'. The description adds context about batch capabilities, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like error handling, permissions needed, or rate limits, leaving some gaps despite annotations covering basic safety.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's functionality and usage distinction. Every word serves a purpose, and it's front-loaded with the core action, making it 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 complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what vector nodes are, how they differ from other shapes, expected inputs like 'vectorPaths', or output details, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only briefly mentions 'vector' for single and 'vectors' for batch without explaining parameter meanings like 'vectorPaths', 'parentId', or defaults. This leaves most parameters undocumented, failing to add sufficient semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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') and resource ('vector nodes in Figma'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes between single and batch operations, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_rectangle' or 'create_ellipse' beyond the resource type.

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 specifying when to use 'vector' vs. 'vectors' for single or batch operations. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'create_rectangle' or 'create_polygon', and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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