Create component

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention any side effects (e.g., if the component is created in the current selection or requires a parentId), permissions needed, or behavior on duplicate names. The agent has no insight into what happens beyond creation.

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 extremely concise (4 words) but at the expense of necessary information. It does not front-load key details; instead it underspecifies the tool's functionality. While brevity is valued, it must not come at the cost of meaningful guidance.

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 complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is critically incomplete. It lacks return value info, error conditions, and behavioral context. The agent cannot safely use this tool without additional knowledge.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 10 parameters, including nested objects like 'style' and 'layout'. The description adds zero semantic value beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent to guess the meaning and constraints of each parameter.

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 'Create a native Figma component' clearly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_frame or create_text by specifying 'component' as a distinct Figma entity. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes a 'native' component, which could be ambiguous.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_frame for non-component frames), nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a page or parent) or when not to use it. This lack of guidance forces the agent to infer context.

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