Conduit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool can 'create, update, or delete' and returns an array of results, but lacks critical details like required permissions, whether operations are atomic, error handling, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with complex nested parameters, this is inadequate.

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 two sentences: one stating the purpose and scope, and another specifying the return type. Every word earns its place, and key information is front-loaded.

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 (one being a complex nested array), 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter meanings, behavioral constraints, error cases, and output structure, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate safely.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'entries' and 'one or more layout grids' but provides no explanation of what 'entries', 'nodeId', 'gridIndex', 'properties', or their sub-properties mean. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure.

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 ('Create, update, or delete') and resource ('layout grids on Figma nodes'), with specific node types listed (FRAME, COMPONENT, INSTANCE). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_auto_layout' or 'set_guide', but the focus on 'layout grids' is sufficiently specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_auto_layout' or 'set_guide', nor are prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be selected.

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