Conduit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool can add or delete guides and returns an array of result objects, but it lacks details on permissions, error handling, side effects (e.g., if deletions are permanent), or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the action and return value. There is no wasted language, but it could benefit from slightly more detail to improve completeness without sacrificing brevity.

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 complexity (mutation with nested parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It does not cover parameter meanings, behavioral nuances, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively in a Figma environment.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the parameters 'guide' or 'guides', their structure (e.g., 'axis', 'offset', 'delete'), or how they interact (e.g., using 'guides' array for multiple operations). Without this, the agent cannot understand how to invoke the tool correctly beyond the raw schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Add or delete one or more guides on the current Figma page.' It specifies the verb ('Add or delete'), resource ('guides'), and scope ('on the current Figma page'), making the action explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_guide' or 'set_grid', which slightly limits its clarity.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open page), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_guide' (for reading guides) or 'set_grid' (for grid settings). This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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