Run a FigCraft command

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, yet the description says nothing about commands mutating or destroying document state, nor about behavior on invalid commands. The id-format hint is useful but is discovery context, not behavioral disclosure, so the description adds little beyond the annotations.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence with a useful example list; nothing is padded. It is efficient, though the trailing ellipsis leaves the enumeration open-ended rather than closing the thought.

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 catch-all dispatcher with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It omits what params the underlying commands accept, error behavior for unknown ids, and any indication of what a call returns or changes.

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 0% for 2 parameters. The description does add real meaning to `command` by tying ids to menus/shortcuts/Actions palette, but the `params` object (arbitrary nested properties) is completely undocumented, leaving a significant gap for a dispatcher that forwards arguments to arbitrary commands.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('run any command of the app') and clarifies the command namespace by pointing to menu/shortcut/Actions palette ids with concrete examples like align.left and file.export. It is reasonably distinguishable from list_commands, but as a catch-all dispatcher it overlaps with concrete siblings like create_node and batch without explaining the boundary.

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/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives. It never says to use list_commands to discover valid ids or batch for multiple operations, and never clarifies why an agent would pick run_command over the dedicated sibling tools.

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