Create a frame

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

The annotations already mark the operation as non-read-only and destructive, and the description adds useful behavior beyond them: the frame starts empty, placement follows the page or parentId, and the node id is returned. It does not explain what the destructive hint refers to, but it does not contradict the annotation.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the core action, placement behavior, and return value with no redundant filler. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple creation tool with no required parameters, the description plus schema provides defaults, placement, and the returned id, which is enough to invoke it. The only real gap is that the destructiveHint annotation's side effect is not clarified, though it is not central to calling this tool successfully.

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 descriptions cover 71% of parameters, including fill, name, width, height, and parentId, so the schema does most of the work. The description adds only high-level reinforcement of 'fill' and 'parent' and does not explain x/y coordinates or units.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Creates an empty frame') and adds placement options ('current page or inside a parent you name'), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling creation tools. It also states the return value, making the tool's role in a build workflow explicit.

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 conveys clear context: frames are created either on the current page or under a named parent, and the returned id is meant to be used by a subsequent call to fill the frame. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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