create_frame

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it mostly lists parameters. It does not mention side effects, insertion behavior, selection context, z-order, or return values. The only behavioral tip is the glass-pane opacity guidance, which is useful but insufficient for full 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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a compact parameter list. Each line is terse and informative, but the list is long due to 16 parameters. No filler or redundant explanation exists, though the 'basics' group could be more explicit.

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?

The tool has 16 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must provide broader context. While parameter semantics are rich, the description omits critical contextual information such as where the frame is created, whether it becomes the active container, how children attach, and what the tool returns. This is a significant gap for a complex creation 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden for parameters. It covers 14 of 16 parameters with meaningful details: hexColor format, fillOpacity range with a practical tip, gradient structure with angle/stops, shadow fields, and blur definition. It misses opacity and clipsContent, preventing a perfect score.

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 opening line 'Create a Figma Frame (artboard/container)' states a specific verb and target resource, clearly distinguishing frames from sibling tools like create_rectangle, create_ellipse, and create_text. The parenthetical '(artboard/container)' further clarifies the intended role of a frame.

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 implies usage as an artboard or container, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer create_frame over siblings such as create_rectangle or batch_create. No alternative tools are named, and there are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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