Create SVG

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 discloses that the import results in editable vector nodes and implies a simplicity limitation, but it doesn't specify how existing content in the parent is handled, whether it replaces or adds nodes, or possible failure modes for complex SVGs.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by use cases and a process note. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the core purpose and typical use cases, but it omits details about parameter semantics, positioning, and error behavior. It is adequate for an agent to understand what the tool does but not fully equipped to invoke it correctly in all scenarios.

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 coverage is only 33%, with only svg and parentId having descriptions. The description does not provide additional meaning for x, y, width, or height, which are optional but lack any documentation. The agent would need to infer their purpose from names alone, and no guidance is given on how they interact with the SVG import.

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 tool imports an SVG string as editable Figma vector nodes, with specific use cases (icons, logos, simple graphics). This distinguishes it from siblings like place_image or create_node.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool ('Use for icons, logos, simple graphics') and notes that the agent generates the SVG string directly. It implies this is for vector graphics rather than raster images but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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