create_effect_style

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without mentioning side effects (e.g., whether existing styles are overwritten, required permissions, or response behavior). This is insufficient for a creation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every element is relevant.

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 tool that creates a resource (effect style), the description lacks crucial context: return value (likely style ID), uniqueness constraints, potential errors (e.g., duplicate name), and performance considerations. No output schema is present, so the description should compensate.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so the description adds little value beyond mentioning 'shadows, blurs' as examples. It does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('create'), the resource ('a reusable effect style'), and the domain ('Figma's local styles'). It specifies the types ('shadows, blurs'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_paint_style or create_text_style.

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 implies usage for creating reusable styles rather than applying effects to individual nodes, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like set_effects or set_effect_style_id, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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