create_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that Inter is the default font family and implies that relying on defaults may not match design-system layers. This is useful for the agent to anticipate the tool's behavior. However, it does not mention the return value (e.g., the created node's ID) or any side effects beyond creating a node. Still, the default font and override guidance add meaningful context.

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 only two sentences: the first states the core function, the second offers a focused tip. There is no redundant wording or restating of schema details. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well structured.

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 (15 parameters) and lack of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states the action and provides a real-world workflow tip. It does not explain return values or interaction with parentId, but these are less central for a create operation. The detailed schema and the practical example compensate for missing context, though a brief note on what the tool returns would enhance completeness.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by identifying a specific subset of parameters (fontFamily, fontStyle, textAlignHorizontal, width, lineHeight) and explaining their combined purpose when matching a design-system layer. This strategic guidance helps the agent decide which parameters to set, going beyond the schema's individual property descriptions.

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 opens with 'Create a new text element in Figma,' using a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_rectangle and set_text_content by focusing on text creation rather than other shapes or updates. The additional guidance about matching a design-system layer further clarifies its intended use.

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 contextual guidance: when the goal is to match an existing design-system layer, set specific properties (fontFamily, fontStyle, textAlignHorizontal, width, lineHeight) rather than relying on Inter defaults. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like set_text_content, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. This is strong context but lacks explicit alternative comparison.

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