create_text

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only indicates that the tool creates a text element, implying mutation. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, or limitations (e.g., whether the creation is immediately persisted or reversible). With zero annotation support, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence with no extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for a simple creation tool, though it could have included a bit more context (e.g., required parameters) without sacrificing 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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It omits information about return values, naming conventions, node behavior, or relationship to parent, leaving the agent without a complete picture of what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 the input schema already documents all 8 parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is sufficient per the rubric baseline for high coverage. However, it could have hinted at common usage patterns or parameter relationships.

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 new text element in Figma" clearly states the verb (create) and resource (text element), and the context (Figma). It is specific enough to distinguish from other creation tools like create_frame or create_rectangle, but lacks mention of the target (e.g., current page or selection) that could further differentiate it.

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 (e.g., set_text_content, create_component_instance). No prerequisites or context (e.g., needing a document open) are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.

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