Conduit

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

Annotations provide extensive behavioral information (readOnlyHint=false, edgeCaseWarnings, etc.), so the bar is lower. The description adds value by specifying the return format ('content: Array of objects...') which isn't covered by annotations. It also clarifies the batch capability ('one or more child nodes') and the optional index behavior. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 reasonably concise (two sentences) but could be better structured. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but the second sentence mixes return format details with implementation specifics. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, but the return format explanation could be more streamlined.

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 (batch operations, hierarchical manipulation) and rich annotations, the description provides adequate context. It covers the core functionality and return format, though it lacks output schema. The annotations compensate significantly with edgeCaseWarnings and detailedDescription, making the overall documentation fairly complete despite the description's brevity.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples of valid node IDs, no clarification on batch vs single operation trade-offs). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full parameter documentation burden.

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: 'Sets or inserts one or more child nodes into parent nodes at optional index positions in Figma.' This specifies the verb (sets/inserts), resource (child nodes into parent nodes), and context (Figma). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'move_node' or 'reorder_node' which might have overlapping 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. While annotations mention 'Use with valid node IDs to avoid unexpected behavior,' this is a general warning rather than usage context. There's no indication of when to choose this over tools like 'move_node', 'reorder_node', or 'set_node_prop' from the sibling list.

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