figma_create_ellipse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create an ellipse/circle,' which implies a mutating operation but does not explain side effects, return values, coordinate system, units, or whether the operation uses the current selection. This is minimal behavioral information.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), which is good for front-loading. However, it is under-specified — while every word earns its place, it sacrifices necessary information. A concise but more informative description would score higher.

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 simple shape-creation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain coordinate origins, units (pixels), default parent behavior, or what happens after creation. While the tool is relatively simple, the description should at least clarify these basics.

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 only 14%, with most parameters (width, height, x, y, name, parentId) lacking semantic explanations. The description adds no parameter detail whatsoever, leaving the agent to infer the meaning of coordinates, units, and optional fields from the schema alone. For a 7-parameter tool with 2 required, 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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and a clear resource ('ellipse/circle'), which clearly communicates the primary action. It is distinct from sibling tools like figma_create_rectangle or figma_create_text, but it does not mention any additional context like where the ellipse is created or what the parameters represent.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., figma_create_rectangle or figma_create_path). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for choosing this tool.

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