convert_to_frame

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: it preserves position, size, visual properties, and children. It also implicitates that the resulting frame supports auto-layout. Missing are details on whether the operation is reversible, if it requires specific permissions, or what happens if the node is already a frame. Overall, transparency is good but not exhaustive.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the primary action, the second lists preserved properties, and the third provides a use case. Every sentence adds distinct value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, preservation details, and a use case. It lacks edge case handling (e.g., if node is already a frame) and does not specify the return value or whether the original node ID remains valid. Slight gaps, but sufficient for a simple conversion 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 parameter 'nodeId' has a schema description that is generic ('The ID of the node to convert to a frame'). The tool description adds context by specifying that the node must be a group or shape, which is meaningful beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by narrowing the valid node types.

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 ('convert'), the target resource ('group or shape node into a frame'), and provides specific details about what is preserved (position, size, visual properties, children). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'group_nodes' or 'ungroup_nodes' by specifying the conversion outcome.

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 a use case ('useful for converting groups into auto-layout-capable frames') but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives such as 'create_frame' or 'set_auto_layout'. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparative guidance.

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