Conduit

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

Annotations already provide rich behavioral information (idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false, edgeCaseWarnings). The description adds value by specifying the return format ('array of result objects') and clarifying the single/batch parameter structures, which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with 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 opening sentence followed by bullet-like formatting for parameter structures. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the formatting could be slightly cleaner for machine parsing.

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 annotations provide extensive behavioral context (idempotent, non-destructive, edge cases) and the schema has good coverage, the description adds useful operational context about single/batch modes and return format. The main gap is lack of output schema, but the description partially compensates by specifying the return type.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds marginal value by showing example structures for single vs batch operations, but doesn't explain parameter meanings beyond what's in the schema descriptions (like what 'channelId' or 'parentId' actually do).

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 'applies' and the resource 'a mask in Figma', specifying it supports both single and batch operations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'set_effect' or 'set_gradient' by focusing specifically on masking functionality.

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 like 'boolean' (which might handle masking differently) or other sibling tools. It mentions support for single/batch operations but doesn't explain when to choose one over the other or any prerequisites.

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