Conduit

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

Annotations provide significant behavioral information (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds value by specifying the return format ('Array of objects...'), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens to child nodes during resizing.

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 appropriately brief with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one describing the return format. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information. The structure is front-loaded with the core action first. Minor deduction because the return format description could be slightly more concise.

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 mutation tool with good annotations but no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and return format information. However, it lacks important context about how this operation fits within the Figma editing workflow, what validation occurs, or error conditions. The return format description helps but doesn't fully compensate for the missing output schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents all three parameters with their constraints and formats. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Resize a node in Figma') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'move_node' or 'rotate_node' by focusing on dimension changes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'set_node' or 'set_node_prop' that might also modify node properties.

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. With many sibling tools that modify nodes (e.g., 'set_node', 'set_node_prop', 'move_node'), there's no indication of when resizing is the appropriate operation versus other modification methods. 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.