figma_create_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that a node is created and the ID is returned, and mentions the default fontFamily. However, it does not discuss potential side effects, error conditions, permissions required, or whether the operation is reversible. More detail on these would improve 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?

Two sentences, each adding value. The first sentence states the primary action and return. The second sentence provides critical guidance on fontFamily and an alternative tool. No redundant or verbose language.

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 absence of an output schema, the description correctly explains the return value. It covers key behavioral aspects like font handling. However, it could be more complete by mentioning that other parameters have defaults (e.g., fontSize defaults to 16) or by noting that the node is created on the current page as stated. Overall, it provides sufficient context for most use cases.

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 9 parameters with 56% description coverage. The description adds meaning by emphasizing the fontFamily default and the need to specify DS fonts, and by stating that the tool returns the created node ID. However, it does not elaborate on other parameters like x, y, fontSize, or fillColor beyond what the schema provides, leaving some 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 action ('Create a new text node'), the resource ('on the current page'), and the return value ('Returns the created node ID'). It distinguishes from siblings by noting that for design system text with proper token binding, figma_execute is preferred.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it warns that fontFamily defaults to 'Inter' and advises specifying the DS font for design systems, and directs users to figma_execute for DS text with proper token binding. This helps agents choose correctly among siblings like figma_execute or other creation tools.

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