create_frame

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, but it only states 'create' with no disclosure of side effects, required file context, whether the frame is appended to the current page, or behavior of optional fields like parentId. This is similar to a bare mutation statement without permission or reversibility hints.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately short for stating the action, though it could be slightly more informative without padding.

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 20 parameters, nested objects, and various auto-layout options, this one-sentence description is insufficient to fully understand the tool's capabilities and defaults. The schema is rich, but the description provides no overall context, expected outcomes, or constraints beyond the required parameters.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 20 parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain individual fields. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already gives, so it meets the baseline but nothing more.

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 names the action (create) and the resource (a frame in Figma), conveying the core function. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling creation tools like create_rectangle or create_text, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus creating other node types or when to set auto-layout vs plain frame. There's no mention of prerequisites, like needing a document to exist or how parentId is used, and no exclusions for alternative tools.

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