figma_create_text

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

The description discloses the default fontFamily, return value, and suggests an alternative for DS text, which adds behavioral context beyond the basic action. However, it does not cover other important behaviors such as side effects (e.g., selection changes), permissions required, or error handling. Without annotations, more behavioral detail would be beneficial.

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 with four sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action and return, highlighting an important default, and providing an alternative. No redundant information, well 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the primary use case and important caveats but lacks details on many parameters and return format. It is adequate for basic usage but not comprehensive for all scenarios.

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 description adds meaningful context for the fontFamily parameter by emphasizing its default and relation to design system fonts, and it hints at parentId by mentioning 'current page'. However, with only 56% schema coverage, the description does not compensate for undocumented parameters like x, y, fontSize, fillColor, and fontStyle, leaving significant gaps.

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 new text node on the current page and returns the node ID. It differentiates from sibling tools like figma_create_frame and figma_create_rectangle by specifying the text node creation, and it explicitly mentions an alternative (figma_execute) for design system text with token binding, which further distinguishes its intended use.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (creating simple text nodes) and when to use an alternative ('For DS text with proper token binding, prefer figma_execute...'). It also advises to specify the DS font from active-ds.md when using a design system, offering clear context for correct usage.

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