Conduit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It states the tool is asynchronous and returns a message, but doesn't disclose error handling, performance implications, whether it affects existing text nodes, or authentication/rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool in a design environment.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by return format details. However, the example could be integrated more smoothly, and there's room to combine sentences without losing clarity.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and return format. However, as a mutation tool in Figma with no annotations, it should explain more about side effects, error cases, and integration with other font-related operations to be fully complete.

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%, providing clear documentation for both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 without adding extra value.

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 ('Load a font asynchronously') and target resource ('in Figma'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_text_style' or 'set_text_content' that might also involve fonts, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a document must be open), compare to synchronous loading methods, or explain why asynchronous loading is beneficial in Figma's context.

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