Conduit

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the return format ('Array of objects... with the detached instance's ID or error info'), which is not covered in annotations. Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (e.g., 'destructiveHint: false', 'idempotentHint: true', edge cases), but the description provides useful output context without contradiction.

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 action and resource, followed by return details in a clear format. It uses two sentences efficiently, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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 (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and rich annotations (covering safety, idempotency, edge cases), the description is reasonably complete. It adds output format details, but could benefit from more context on when to use specific parameters, though annotations help fill gaps.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters like 'instanceId', 'instanceIds', and 'options'. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high 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 ('detaches') and resource ('Figma component instances from their masters'), making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_component_instance' or 'duplicate_node' by focusing on detachment rather than creation or duplication.

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 detaching component instances, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'flatten_node' or 'delete_node'. However, the annotations provide extra context with 'Use this command to detach one or more component instances from their masters in a single call,' which clarifies the intended context.

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