Conduit

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

Annotations provide significant behavioral information (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), so the description's burden is reduced. It adds value by describing the return format (array of objects with type, text fields), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, permissions needed, or rate limits that would enhance transparency beyond annotations.

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. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information. However, the return format description could be slightly more concise, and there's some redundancy in describing the content structure.

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 rich annotations (idempotent, non-destructive, read/write) and comprehensive schema coverage, the description provides adequate context for a transformation tool. The addition of return format information compensates for the lack of output schema. However, it could better address when to use this versus other node manipulation tools for more complete 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions (e.g., angle direction, pivot options, custom pivot requirements). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't provide 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 ('Rotate a node in Figma') with the specific resource ('node'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'set_matrix_transform' or 'reorder_node' that might also affect node positioning or transformation, missing full sibling distinction.

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 manipulate nodes (e.g., 'move_node', 'resize_node', 'set_matrix_transform'), there's no indication of when rotation is the appropriate operation versus other transformations or adjustments.

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