figjam_create_code_block

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It is accurate but non-technical; it doesn't disclose operational behaviors like placement defaults (for x, y), content sanitization, or rate limits. It avoids contradiction but provides limited deep behavioral insight.

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 highly concise. It is a single, focused paragraph where every sentence contributes directly to defining the tool's function and scope, without filler.

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?

The description is nearly complete for a creation tool. However, it lacks contextual information regarding the default behavior for positioning (x, y) coordinates if they are omitted, which is a key functional detail for a canvas-based editor.

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage. The description adds baseline semantic value by defining what the parameters ('code', 'language') are semantically intended for, specifically linking them to code snippets and technical formats.

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 and the resource ('Create a code block on a FigJam board'). It provides excellent semantic context by outlining common use cases like 'sharing code snippets' and 'technical documentation', which distinguishes it from general FigJam text tools.

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?

It provides clear guidance on when to use the tool, focusing on specific scenarios (code, config, documentation). This helps the agent decide if a simple text box or a code block is more appropriate for the user's request.

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