Create Figma Frame

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses one side effect ('select it') and the target context ('active Figma page'), but says nothing about potential overwrites, permissions, error cases, or effects on the existing selection. For a mutation tool, this is minimal and leaves important behaviors undisclosed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the core purpose without filler. It is appropriately concise for the main action, though it excludes important semantic details. It earns its place structurally, but could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

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, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is insufficiently complete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. It does not explain return values, how coordinates relate to the page, or the consequences of creating a frame. The description is too sparse to support correct invocation in varied contexts.

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 adds no information about any of the 6 parameters (x, y, name, width, height, timeoutMs). The description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent without guidance on coordinate meanings, size limits, or naming conventions. This is a significant gap.

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 action: 'Create a frame on the active Figma page and select it.' It specifies a concrete verb (create), a resource (frame), and a location (active Figma page), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools, which are mostly read/inspection tools (e.g., figma_get_selection, figma_read_node), so a creation tool is clearly differentiated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites. It does not mention that this should be used to create a new frame as opposed to modifying existing ones or reading the document. There are no exclusions or explicit references to sibling tools, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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