Create Frame

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations (openWorldHint). It does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or how the frame interacts with the parent node. For a mutation tool with 21 parameters, more transparency is expected.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action. It avoids verbosity and unnecessary details, though it could be slightly expanded to distinguish from similar tools.

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 (21 parameters, 6 enums, nested objects) and the presence of numerous sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what a frame is in Figma, that it requires a parentId, or that it supports extensive auto-layout options. The high parameter count demands a more complete description to guide correct usage.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions 'optional fill/stroke' and 'full auto-layout configuration,' which aligns with the parameters but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 frame with optional fill/stroke and auto-layout configuration, distinguishing it from other creation tools like create_shape or create_text. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from create_component or create_component_set, which are related containers.

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 such as create_component, create_shape, or node_set_auto_layout. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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