figma_create_svg

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

Annotations are minimal (none set to true), but the description adds crucial behavioral details: the return includes unboundChildren requiring immediate follow-up, and failure to process them breaks DS compliance and light/dark mode. This goes beyond annotations and gives clear transparency.

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 concise (four sentences) and well-structured: purpose, use case, return behavior, required follow-up actions. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the output format (unboundChildren list). It covers required parameters, optional params with hints, and post-call steps. The DS compliance context is crucial for correct usage, making the description complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra param meaning beyond the schema, except for layoutSizingHorizontal where it provides a usage hint ('Use FILL for charts inside auto-layout containers'). This slight added value keeps the score at 3.

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 creates a node from an SVG string in Figma, specifies it is useful for icons and custom graphics, and naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like figma_create_frame or figma_create_text which handle different input types.

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 strong post-call instructions (must apply figma_update_node to unbound children for DS compliance), which guides the agent on proper usage. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives but implies when this tool is appropriate via the use case mention.

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