create_frame

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a mutation but not a destructive one. The description adds valuable context: frames can be sized/positioned and appended to a parent (defaulting to current page), and it discloses the return shape. It doesn't mention edge cases like invalid parents or selection changes, but for a create operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 zero waste. The description front-loads the core purpose, adds a key capability (auto-layout host), gives a sibling alternative, and concludes with the return structure. Every clause earns its place.

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 6 optional params and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what the tool creates, default behavior, guidance for related tools, and return value. It doesn't explain all edge cases (e.g., invalid parentId, insertion order), but for a create-node tool this is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand usage.

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 covers 67% of parameters (x and y lack descriptions). The description compensates by noting that sizing/positioning is optional and that parentId defaults to the current page. This adds meaning beyond the schema and clarifies optionality, though it doesn't explain units or coordinate origin, which are likely obvious to the target user.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'frame' and clearly distinguishes it from siblings: it positions the frame as the primary UI container and the only auto-layout host, explicitly contrasting with create_section for canvas-level grouping. This is more than a tautology and fully clarifies what the tool does.

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 gives clear context: frames are for auto-layout UI, and it points to set_auto_layout for enabling auto-layout after creation. It also names create_section as the alternative for grouping. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it (e.g., for simple shapes), but the primary use case and alternative are well communicated.

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