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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Clone an existing node' implies a mutating operation, but it does not clarify whether the original node is preserved, where the clone is inserted, how x and y affect positioning, or what side effects occur. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, and the key action is front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices behavioral and contextual detail, making it concise but underinformative.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a description that only states the basic action. It does not explain the resulting node's placement, relationship to the original, return value, or whether x and y are optional/required together. This is incomplete for an agent expected to invoke the tool correctly in a broader design workflow.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains nodeId, x, and y. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond confirming the nodeId refers to an existing node. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the burden.

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 states a specific verb ('Clone') and a clear resource ('an existing node in Figma'), which makes the core purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like create_rectangle or move_node, but the verb 'clone' semantically implies duplication of an existing node, distinguishing it from creation or transformation tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. An agent must infer from the name and description that this is for duplicating an existing node, and there is no comparison with sibling operations such as create_frame or create_component_instance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action ('Create an instance') but does not reveal side effects (e.g., whether the new instance gets selected, what coordinate system x/y refers to, or what happens if componentKey is invalid). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It contains no filler or redundancy, earning full marks for efficiency.

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?

Despite low complexity (3 simple parameters, no output schema), the description lacks important contextual information. It does not mention the need for a componentKey from a valid component, the coordinate system for x/y, or what the tool returns after creation. Since annotations are absent, the description should carry more weight, but it remains too thin to be considered complete.

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 input schema provides full coverage (100%) with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. The parameter descriptions are adequate but minimal, and the tool description does not enrich them further.

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') and the specific resource ('an instance of a component'), with context ('in Figma'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_rectangle or create_frame, which target different object types.

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 its usage situation—when you need to instantiate a component—but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over other creation tools, nor does it note any prerequisites such as obtaining a valid componentKey from get_local_components. No alternatives are named, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't mention permissions required, whether this creates a permanent change, what happens if parentId is invalid, or any rate limits. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

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 creation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a frame is in Figma context, what happens after creation, or provide any context about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action. The agent would need to infer too much from just the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, providing detailed documentation for all 9 parameters. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter relationships or usage patterns.

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') and resource ('a new frame in Figma'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other creation tools like create_rectangle or create_component_instance, which would require mentioning what distinguishes a frame from other Figma elements.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like create_rectangle and create_component_instance available, there's no indication of when a frame is the appropriate element type versus other shapes or components in Figma design workflows.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only repeats the basic action. It does not mention default parenting behavior, coordinate system, units, selection handling, or side effects beyond the creation itself.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the core action.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too minimal. It omits important context such as what happens when parentId is omitted, what coordinate space x/y refer to, and what the tool returns after creation.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 6 parameters, so the schema fully documents semantics. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 'Create a new rectangle in Figma' states a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the operation. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling creation tools like create_frame or create_text, but the resource type is unambiguous.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to choose create_rectangle over alternatives such as create_frame or create_section, nor does it mention any preconditions or context in which this tool should be used.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't mention permissions required, whether this creates elements in the current document or a new one, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear primary function and benefits from the comprehensive parameter documentation in the schema.

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 creation/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves important gaps. It identifies what the tool does but doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, error conditions, or what the tool returns. The comprehensive parameter schema helps, but the description itself doesn't provide enough context for confident use.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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') and resource ('new text element in Figma'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other creation tools like create_frame or create_rectangle, which would require specifying that this creates specifically text elements rather than other types of design elements.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like set_text_content (which modifies existing text) and create_frame/create_rectangle (which create other element types), there's no indication of when creating new text is appropriate versus modifying existing text or creating other element types.

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

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic delete action and omits critical traits such as irreversibility, whether child nodes are deleted, or any side effects. For a destructive operation, this is a significant transparency gap.

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, direct sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, but it is so minimal that it omits useful behavioral context; still, as far as structure and brevity, it is clean.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention the irreversible nature of the operation, whether children are affected, or how this tool differs from 'delete_multiple_nodes'. An agent is left without key information for safe invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% and the 'nodeId' parameter is clearly described as 'The ID of the node to delete'. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema but does not need to, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete'), a resource ('node'), and a context ('from Figma'), making the core action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'delete_multiple_nodes', so the specificity is slightly incomplete, but the singular phrasing and tool name carry that distinction.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'delete_multiple_nodes'. The description gives no context for choosing between single and batch deletion, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the tool name without adding behavioral context. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what response format to expect, what limits exist, or how unsupported nodes are handled.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is easy to parse, though the brevity sacrifices useful behavioral context.

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 no annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only place to communicate return behavior, side effects, and constraints. It provides none of that, leaving an agent uncertain about what happens after invocation beyond the parameter contract.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters adequately. The description adds no additional meaning to nodeId, scale, or format beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Export'), resource ('a node'), and result ('as an image'), making the core purpose clear. It is distinct from sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from alternatives by name.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings, no prerequisites, and no mention of exclusions or alternatives. Usage is only implied by the tool's purpose, not explained.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'get detailed information', which implies a read, but does not explain what details are returned, permissions needed, or any limitations. This is under-informative for an agent.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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 is simple, but with no output schema or annotations, the description should clarify what 'detailed information' includes. The current text is vague and leaves the agent guessing about the response structure. It is minimally acceptable but not complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline of 4 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('document') with scope ('current Figma document'). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_node_info and get_selection.

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?

Implies usage for document-level information through the description, but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives such as get_node_info or read_my_design. No exclusions or contextual guidance provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states the scope ('local components' and 'from the Figma document') but does not describe return format, pagination, or what constitutes 'local' versus imported components.

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 concise sentence with no irrelevant details, making it highly efficient.

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 zero-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is largely adequate, specifying the resource and scope. However, it omits any detail about the return value or whether components from all pages are included, though 'from the Figma document' implies full document scope.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. The description appropriately avoids parameter explanation; per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves all local components from the Figma document. The verb 'get' and specific resource 'local components' distinguish it from sibling tools like get_styles or get_document_info.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_styles or create_component_instance. There is no mention of prerequisites, intended use cases, or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only says 'get detailed information'; it does not disclose what fields or depth of data are returned, whether authentication/access is required, or how invalid node IDs are handled. The verb 'get' implies read-only, but no additional behavioral detail is given.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the action and the target resource.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description is minimally sufficient to make a call, but it does not specify what 'detailed information' contains and does not route the agent away from get_nodes_info. With no output schema and no annotations, that leaves a real gap in selecting and interpreting the call.

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 input schema already documents nodeId with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'specific node' but no extra meaning about the ID format, nesting, or addressability of nodes.

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 states a clear action and resource: get detailed information about a specific node in Figma. It is not as strong as it could be because it does not explicitly contrast itself with the plural sibling get_nodes_info or with get_document_info, leaving the distinction to inference.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over get_nodes_info, get_selection, or get_document_info, and no mention of prerequisites or cases where it should not be used. The intended usage is only implicit in the verb 'get'.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get information' implies read-only, but it doesn't specify the return format, behavior with an empty selection, or any other edge cases. This is minimal for a tool with no annotation support.

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 well-structured sentence, front-loaded with the verb and subject, and contains no extraneous words. It is as concise as possible while conveying the core purpose.

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 is simple, but the lack of output schema and the vagueness of 'information' leaves significant gaps. The description does not explain what the returned data looks like, how to handle an empty selection, or any prerequisites, making it incomplete for an agent to fully rely on.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds no parameter semantics, but with no parameters the baseline of 4 is appropriate; there is nothing to explain.

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 'Get' and the resource 'current selection' in Figma, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_selections (which sets selection) and get_node_info (which targets specific nodes). It is concise and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context from sibling names rather than explicit direction.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description itself must convey behavior. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but it does not disclose what constitutes a 'style' (e.g., paint vs text styles) or any error conditions. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

While the tool is simple and the description captures the core action, it omits details about the output format or whether library styles are included. Given no output schema, a bit more context would improve completeness, but the low complexity prevents a lower score.

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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to explain. The description correctly focuses on the tool's action, and with zero parameters, no further semantic detail is necessary.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'all styles' scoped to 'the current Figma document', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, apply, or rename styles. There is no ambiguity about 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like create_paint_style or apply_paint_style. The usage is implied by the name and semantics, but there is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, so the agent must infer.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects, permissions, idempotency, or state changes. The description only says 'Join a specific channel' and gives no indication of what happens when joining, whether it is reversible, whether authentication is required, or what observable effects occur.

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 sentence with no redundant clauses, making it concise and easy to parse. The phrase 'specific' is slightly filler-like, but overall the structure is clean and front-loaded with the action.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations, and a tool that is disjoint from the many sibling node/manipulation tools, the description is too thin for an agent to understand when or how to call it. It does not explain what channels exist, where the channel name comes from, what a successful join looks like, or what conditions cause failure.

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 100% with a parameter description ('The name of the channel to join'), so the schema already handles the basic meaning. The tool description adds no extra information about channel format, naming rules, valid values, or how to discover available channels. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a concrete action ('Join a specific channel') and identifies the resource (a channel), but the purpose is vague: 'to communicate with Figma' does not explain what joining the channel accomplishes, what a channel is in this context, or how this relates to the other Figma tools. It is not a tautology, but it lacks enough specificity to be fully clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, what problem it solves, or which situations warrant joining a channel. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent has no context to decide when this tool is the right choice.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the move action and does not explain whether the move is absolute or relative, what coordinate system is used, whether the node must already exist, how the move interacts with parent/child relationships, or whether the operation is reversible.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundant detail, and the core action is front-loaded. It loses one point because the text is so minimal that it fails to include contextual guidance that would make the conciseness genuinely useful.

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 is simple and all three required parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the one-line description is minimally viable. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that overlap semantically, the description is not complete enough: it leaves the meaning of 'position' ambiguous and gives no usage or side-effect information.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already defines nodeId, x, and y with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, but it does not need to compensate because the schema already provides the essential semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource — 'Move a node to a new position in Figma' — and the x/y parameters make it clear this is a coordinate move. It is not fully a 5 because 'new position' could be confused with moving a node in the hierarchy, especially given the sibling tool set_parent.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_parent, resize_node, or clone_node. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or any decision context, so the agent gets no help selecting between overlapping siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Resize a node in Figma' only implies mutation; it does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, how it interacts with auto-layout, constraints, or child nodes, or any side effects. For a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 zero filler: 'Resize a node in Figma' conveys the purpose immediately. It earns its place, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than deliberate brevity backed by richer content elsewhere.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the one-sentence description must carry all context, but it omits what the tool returns, whether changes are undoable, and how resizing affects constraints or auto-layout parents. An agent calling this tool would have to guess at side effects and expected confirmation behavior, which is inadequate even for a simple 3-parameter mutation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with clear descriptions ('New width', 'New height', 'The ID of the node to resize'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (resize) and resource (a node in Figma), making the core action unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools because move_node, rename_node, delete_node, and clone_node each carry different verbs, so there is no overlap in what this tool does. It stops short of a 5 because it adds no scope detail (e.g., which node types are resizable) or explicit differentiation language.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as move_node, set_layout_sizing, or set_layout_mode. There are no conditions, exclusions, or references to siblings, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness entirely from the tool name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral expectations. 'Set the corner radius' conveys a basic mutation, but it does not mention that the change is persistent, whether unsupported node types will error, how the optional corners parameter interacts with the radius, or whether existing radius values are overwritten. For a mutation tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's action and target. The under-specification of behavioral details is a completeness issue, not a conciseness issue.

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 simple three-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, the core invocation details are present. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important context unstated: how to obtain a valid nodeId, whether all nodes support corner radius, and what happens when corners is omitted. This is adequate but not robust.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents nodeId, radius, and the optional corners array. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond echoing the general concept of corner radius. This is the expected baseline when the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('corner radius of a node in Figma'). This meaningfully distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_fill_color, resize_node, or set_padding. Even without a title, the purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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 intended use case is implied by the tool name and description: use it when you need to change a node's corner radius. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, what node types support corner radius, or how it relates to alternative tools such as resize_node or set_padding. It meets the threshold for implied usage but provides no explicit routing or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds the supported node types, but does not disclose whether existing fills are replaced, what happens for unsupported node types, or how the optional alpha parameter behaves. 'Set' implies mutation, but deeper behavioral context is missing.

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 short and front-loaded with the action and target, avoiding unnecessary detail. However, the grammar is slightly awkward in the trailing clause, which prevents a higher score.

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 simple setter with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It is missing edge-case behavior details, especially around the optional alpha parameter and unsupported node types, but remains functional for basic invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions, ranges, and required flags. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a concrete action ('Set') and target ('fill color of a node'), and adds supported node types (TextNode or FrameNode). This is clear enough to distinguish it from stroke-related or image-fill siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It does not mention alternatives such as set_stroke_color or set_image_fill, leaving an agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the stroke color is set, without explaining whether the stroke already must exist, whether multiple strokes are affected, whether the change replaces or adds to the existing style, or what happens on invalid input. Basic mutation is conveyed, but no meaningful behavioral depth is added.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy for an agent to scan and understand quickly.

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 mutation tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not mention what the tool returns, whether it requires a selected node, how the optional weight parameter interacts with the stroke, or any failure modes. The schema covers the parameters, but the surrounding context needed for safe invocation is largely absent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond 'stroke color', which is sufficient given the schema's thorough per-property descriptions. The baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Set the stroke color of a node in Figma'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_fill_color and set_corner_radius. The intent is immediately understandable and unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_fill_color, nor any mention of prerequisites like having a selected node or an existing stroke. The purpose implies usage in a basic way, but the description provides no explicit context or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('set text content') but does not disclose that existing text will be overwritten, possible error cases for invalid node IDs, permissions, or any side effects. The description mostly restates what the tool name already conveys.

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 filler. It states the action, target, and context efficiently.Purpose and scope are clear without any wasted words.

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 low complexity (2 simple parameters, full schema coverage, no output schema), the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It clearly targets existing text nodes. However, a brief note about overwriting the existing text or batch alternatives would round out the context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and their meanings. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond reinforcing that the node must already exist and be a text node. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Set'), a precise resource ('text content of an existing text node'), and the domain ('in Figma'). The word 'existing' distinguishes this from create_text, and the singular 'a text node' contrasts with set_multiple_text_contents.

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 for modifying one existing text node, but it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over siblings like set_multiple_text_contents or create_text. There is no when/when-not guidance, only a contextual cue via 'existing'.

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