Batch create up to 200 sticky notes on a FigJam board from structured data such as meeting notes or brainstorm ideas.
Batch create multiple sticky notes on a FigJam board (max 200). Use this to populate boards from structured data (meeting notes, brainstorm ideas, etc.).
Colors: YELLOW, BLUE, GREEN, PINK, ORANGE, PURPLE, RED, LIGHT_GRAY, GRAY
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stickies | Yes | Array of sticky note specifications (max 200) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.46.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the 200-item ceiling and the allowed color set, but says nothing about the failure mode (partial creation? atomic?), whether positions are optional/who assigns layout, or what identifiers come back for the created notes.
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?
Two short blocks, front-loaded with the core action and the cap. The bolded color list is largely redundant with the enum already present in the schema, but it is compact and does not obscure the main statement.
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?
For a single-array-parameter tool with full schema documentation and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, scale, and an example use case. The remaining gap is only the result/failure behavior of a batch mutation, which is modest given the schema does the structural work.
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 baseline is 3. The description only restates facts already encoded in the schema (maxItems: 200 and the color enum), adding no meaning such as default coordinate behavior or text length limits.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Batch create multiple sticky notes on a FigJam board') plus a hard cap of 200, which implicitly separates it from the singular figjam_create_sticky sibling. It never names that sibling or any other FigJam creation tool explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
'Use this to populate boards from structured data (meeting notes, brainstorm ideas, etc.)' gives a genuine when-to-use. However, with a singular figjam_create_sticky sibling, the obvious batch-vs-single decision is exactly the one an agent must make, and no alternative or when-not guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.