figma_create_frame

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully cover behavioral aspects. It mentions auto-layout defaults and return value, but does not disclose idempotency, side effects, error conditions, or permissions. The version note is helpful but insufficient for complete transparency.

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 concise: two sentences front-loaded with the core purpose. The version note is appended. No unnecessary words, but could be slightly better structured by separating version info into a note.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must compensate. It covers core functionality and key defaults but lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., parentId context), error handling, and the many variable-related parameters. For a 23-parameter tool, this is incomplete.

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 65%, meaning many parameters already have descriptions. The description adds overall context about defaults and versioning but does not elaborate on each parameter beyond what the schema already provides. It partially compensates for uncovered parameters by giving examples but not fully.

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 'Create a new frame node with optional auto-layout. Returns the created node ID.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like figma_create_rectangle or figma_create_text. The mention of auto-layout and return value adds clarity.

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 version-specific defaults and mentions auto-layout vs legacy, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when to create a frame vs a group or rectangle). No direct comparison or context for selection.

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