figma_create_frame

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a write operation but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., whether it uses current selection, requires page context, or is undoable). The terse statement adds little beyond the tool's name.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words or repetition. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and distinguishing features.

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 (27 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), this one-sentence description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, default behaviors, or how children objects are structured, leaving the agent to rely heavily on the sparse schema.

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 11%, and the description does not compensate: it mentions auto-layout and stroke features but doesn't map them to the many undocumented parameters (padding, spacing, alignment, etc.). The one sentence provides only a vague hint about capabilities, not parameter semantics.

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 frame' clearly identifies the action and target resource, and the added features (auto-layout, stroke, nested children) distinguish it from simple shape-creation siblings like figma_create_rectangle. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with figma_create_component or figma_create_instance, so it's not a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives among the many sibling creation tools. The description implies it's for frames requiring layout/stroke/children but provides no usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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