create_paint_style

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses upsert semantics ('create or update'), but says nothing about required permissions, what happens to an existing style of the same name, side effects, or return behavior for what is effectively a mutation.

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 efficient, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is only marginally penalized because the terseness edges into under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 an upsert mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the definition is too thin. An agent lacks the parameter formats, upsert collision behavior, and usage routing needed to invoke it correctly.

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% with three params (hex, name, paints). The description mentions 'paint style' but adds no detail on name, hex format, or the structure of the paints array, leaving the undocumented params unexplained in both places.

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 specific verb+resource (create/update a local paint style), which lets an agent distinguish it from apply_fill_style (applies to a node) and set_fill_color (sets a color). However it offers no explicit contrast with the near siblings create_text_style/create_effect_style/create_grid_style or import_style_by_key.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to use this versus set_fill_color, figma_set_solid_fill, or apply_fill_style when it wants paint on a node versus a reusable style.

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