create_component_instance

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. It states 'Create an instance' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't address permissions (e.g., edit access required), side effects (e.g., adds to document), error conditions (e.g., invalid componentKey), or response format. For a mutation 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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear purpose and good schema coverage, though it could benefit from additional 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'instance' means in Figma context, what happens on success/failure, or how this differs from similar creation tools. Given the complexity of Figma operations and lack of structured behavioral data, more guidance is needed.

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 (componentKey, x, y) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as coordinate system details or componentKey format examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the action ('Create an instance') and resource ('component in Figma'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'clone_node' or 'create_frame' that might also create visual elements, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific tool is appropriate versus 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'clone_node' or 'create_frame'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing component), context (e.g., must be in a Figma document), or exclusions (e.g., cannot create instances of non-existent components).

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