create_typography_scale

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: the deterministic sizing formula, the default step set, and the side effect that createSampleFrame produces sample text nodes in a frame. However, it says nothing about permissions, where the scale is stored (styles vs. nodes), or what parentNodeId affects, which are significant gaps for a creation 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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and formula, followed by the optional behaviors. Parentheticals are used efficiently; only minor tightening would help.

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 12-parameter, nested-object creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the core algorithm and a few key options but leaves half the parameters and the tool's side effects incompletely covered. Adequate 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?

Schema description coverage is only 8% (just variationSettings), so the description must compensate. It explains baseSize and ratio via the formula, and touches steps, createSampleFrame, variationSettings, and fontStyle, but leaves prefix, fontFamily, lineHeight, lineHeightRatio, letterSpacing, and parentNodeId entirely unexplained.

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 ('Create a text-style scale') and goes further by defining the underlying formula (fontSize = base * ratio^offset) and the default step names. It distinguishes itself implicitly from siblings like create_text_style/set_text_style by describing a whole generated scale rather than a single style, though it never names those 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?

Offers conditional guidance for one case ('For variable fonts, pass variationSettings and optionally omit fontStyle') and mentions the createSampleFrame option, so usage is implied for those scenarios. It gives no when-not-to-use guidance and no explicit routing against the many sibling style/text tools.

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