create_frame

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that auto-layout is automatically applied with 'design-intelligent defaults,' but lacks details on defaults, side effects, or required permissions. The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and adding a key behavioral detail. No fluff or unnecessary information; every part earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (19 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a high-level purpose but omits information about return values, error conditions, or additional constraints. The schema richness compensates partly, but the description could be more 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 100% for all 19 parameters, so the schema already provides complete parameter meaning. The description does not add further value beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 a frame') and specifies the resource types (screen, section, card, container). It distinguishes the tool from other creation tools like create_rectangle by emphasizing auto-layout and design-intelligent defaults, providing a specific verb and resource.

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 implies usage scenarios for creating containers, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_section, create_card_grid). No contraindications or exclusions are provided, leaving usage context somewhat implied.

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