Conduit

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

Annotations provide rich behavioral information (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, edgeCaseWarnings, etc.). The description adds value by specifying the return format ('content: Array of objects...'), which isn't covered in annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations but provides additional output context.

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 only two sentences: one stating the core functionality and one specifying the return format. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information not available elsewhere. It's front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 moderate complexity (conditional grouping/ungrouping with 4 parameters), rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and output format. The main gap is lack of explicit usage guidelines versus alternatives, but annotations provide substantial behavioral 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 all parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full parameter documentation burden.

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 ('Groups or ungroups') and resource ('nodes in Figma'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying its unique grouping/ungrouping functionality. It's specific about the conditional behavior based on the 'group' flag.

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 through the 'group' flag parameter but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions the conditional behavior, it lacks explicit when/when-not scenarios or named alternatives among sibling tools.

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