Conduit

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the return format ('Returns: content: Array of objects...') which isn't covered by annotations. Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and edge case warnings, but the description complements this by clarifying the output structure. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Perfectly structured and concise: a clear opening sentence stating purpose, followed by well-organized parameter and return sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The description is appropriately sized for a tool with 3 parameters and complex behavior.

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 (matrix transformations, batch operations, error handling), rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return format. The only minor gap is not explicitly mentioning the 6-element matrix requirement (though annotations cover this), making it slightly less than perfect.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full burden and excels: it documents all 3 parameters (entry, entries, options), explains their purposes (single vs batch operations, error handling), and provides semantic meaning for each. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Set') and resource ('transformation matrix on one or more Figma nodes'), specifying both single and batch operations. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'move_node', 'rotate_node', or 'resize_node' by focusing specifically on matrix transformations rather than simpler geometric operations.

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 clear context about when to use this tool (for setting transformation matrices on Figma nodes, either single or batch). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, though the context implies it's for matrix-based transformations rather than other node manipulation methods.

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