create_frame

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

The description discloses the return shape ({ok, nodeId, name, type}) and optional behavior for sizing and parent attachment. Annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false) provide no extra context, so the description adds valuable behavioral info.

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 front-loaded action and return specification. No redundant phrases; every word adds value.

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?

For a 6-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality (creation, sizing, positioning, parent) and return shape. It lacks details on default sizes or coordinate system but is sufficient for a simple tool.

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 coverage is 67%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context that x/y are for position and width/height for sizing, which aligns with schema descriptions for those parameters. It does not significantly add meaning beyond the schema.

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 frame' with optional sizing/positioning and parent attachment. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_rectangle or create_ellipse by specifying 'frame' as the resource.

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 mentions optional sizing and parent or current page attachment but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., create_section or create_component). Usage is implied but not differentiated.

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