Render Rough.js Sketch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that all output is editable vector nodes and mentions the execution environment (rough, scratch div, pre-created SVG element). However, it does not explain error handling, security implications of executing JS, or how the script integrates with the Figma canvas—significant gaps for a code-execution 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?

The description is succinct and well-structured: purpose, use case, available APIs, how to write the script, and an important note about output. Each sentence delivers value, but it is slightly longer than the minimal two-sentence ideal, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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?

The tool is moderately complex (executing custom JS), and the description covers the high-level purpose, use cases, and output type. However, it lacks detailed guidance on how to access the pre-created SVG element, what the 'scratch div' is, how x/y/width/height are interpreted, and what the function returns—leaving gaps for an agent 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 only 33% (2 of 6 params). The description adds context for the 'script' parameter ('Write JS that uses rough.svg(svg) to draw shapes'), but provides no additional meaning for x, y, width, or height beyond their types. It fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters, making it hard to know how to set position/size.

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 renders hand-drawn/sketchy graphics using Rough.js, specifying the output as editable Figma nodes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_svg, render_d3, and render_satori by focusing on sketchy aesthetic and Rough.js specifically.

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?

It explicitly suggests use cases: informal diagrams, whiteboard-style visuals, creative/playful graphics. This gives clear context for when to choose this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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