create_text_style

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must compensate. It only states the tool creates a style, but doesn't disclose behavior like whether it overwrites existing styles, requires permissions, or returns the style ID. For a create operation, expected mutation is implied, but more detail is needed.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the action and target, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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 has 10 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the created style yields (e.g., style ID for later use) and any constraints (e.g., file context). The current description is too minimal for effective use.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with clear parameter descriptions, so the description adds no additional semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description could have clarified defaults or relationships between parameters (e.g., lineHeightUnit affecting how lineHeight is interpreted).

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 creates a reusable text style in Figma's local styles, which is distinct from other style creation tools (e.g., create_effect_style). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_paint_style, but the context 'text style' makes it sufficiently clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., using set_text_style_id or creating a text node with inline styles). The description only mentions 'useful for design system consistency,' which is a general benefit, not a usage guideline.

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