Conduit

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

Annotations provide rich behavioral info (e.g., idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false, edgeCaseWarnings). The description adds value by explaining the return format ('Returns: - content: Array of objects...') and clarifying the effect of width/height on text box type, which isn't covered in annotations. 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: first sentence states purpose, second explains parameter options, third clarifies bounded vs. regular text, and fourth details return format. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste.

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 rich annotations (including usageExamples and edgeCaseWarnings) and 100% schema coverage, the description provides complete context. It explains creation behavior, parameter usage, and return format. No output schema exists, but the description adequately covers return values.

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 the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds marginal value by explaining the text/texts parameter relationship and the width/height effect on text box type, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Creates one or more text elements in Figma') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'set_text_content' (which modifies existing text) or 'create_rectangle' (which creates a different element type). It specifies the resource (text elements) and the context (Figma).

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 on when to use this tool: for creating text elements, with options for single or batch creation and bounded vs. regular text nodes. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like 'set_text_content' for modifying existing text, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to infer usage.

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