convert_to_frame

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

Without annotations, the description tells that position, size, visual properties, and children are preserved. This is helpful but does not cover potential side effects (e.g., breaking references) or prerequisites beyond the node type mentioned.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the essential action, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, what is preserved, and its purpose. It lacks mention of return value or error conditions, but these are minor omissions.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with a description for the single parameter. The tool description adds no further meaning to 'nodeId' beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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 verb ('Convert'), the resource ('group or shape node'), and the result ('into a frame'). It specifies the converted object's properties are preserved and mentions auto-layout capability, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_frame or group_nodes.

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 explicitly says it's 'useful for converting groups into auto-layout-capable frames', providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not state when not to use or mention alternatives, though siblings exist.

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