Conduit

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

Annotations provide rich behavioral details (e.g., idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false, edgeCaseWarnings), but the description adds value by specifying the return format ('Array of objects... with the inserted image node ID(s)'), which is not covered in annotations. It does not contradict annotations, and it complements them with output information, though it lacks details on error handling or performance 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core action and key details. Sentences are efficient, but the return value explanation could be more integrated. There is no wasted text, though minor restructuring might improve flow, such as merging the return details with the main description for better cohesion.

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 complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, input flexibility, and return values, but lacks explicit usage context or error handling details that could enhance completeness. Annotations fill many gaps, making the overall context sufficient but not exhaustive.

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%, with detailed parameter documentation in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema, only clarifying that inputs can be 'a single image config (via 'image') or an array of configs (via 'images')' and listing sources (URL, file path, base64), which are already implied in schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without significant added 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 specific action ('Sets or inserts one or more images into Figma') and resource ('images'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_image' or 'export_node_as_image'. It specifies the scope (single or multiple images) and supported sources (URL, file path, base64), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'into Figma' and listing input sources, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_node' or 'set_node_prop' for general node operations. No guidance is provided on prerequisites, such as needing an open Figma document or specific permissions, leaving usage context partially inferred.

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