create_node

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations: node placement target ('current page or parent') and capabilities ('text styles and color/numeric variable bindings'). It does not disclose side effects like auto-selection, idempotency, or failure behavior, so it remains at a solid 3.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and capability notes trailing. No wasted clauses, though it is arguably too terse given the underlying complexity.

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 a 3-parameter schema housing a deep nested props object, no output schema, and 0% description coverage, the two-sentence description is thin. It omits which props apply to which node types, required inputs for TEXT vs FRAME, and what is returned on success, which an agent would need to call 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%, so the description must carry the load, but it only alludes to the type enum values and vaguely to variable/text-style bindings. The large nested props object (~30 fields such as characters, fontSize, layoutMode, cornerRadius) is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent guessing.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') plus the resource ('node') and enumerates the exact node types it can produce (FRAME, RECTANGLE, ELLIPSE, TEXT, COMPONENT), which helps distinguish it from siblings like create_instance or create_page. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no indication of when to use create_node versus create_instance, create_scene, or create_page, nor any prerequisites. The phrase 'in the current page or parent' hints at placement behavior but provides no decision guidance or exclusions.

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