figma_create_from_svg

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions support for SVG elements and gradients, but omits critical behaviors such as how width/height resizing affects aspect ratio, error handling for invalid SVG, return values, and relationship to parentId. This is similar to the update_drive example, which scored 2 for lacking permissions, reversibility, and response details.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, use case, and supported features. There is no fluff, redundancy, or repetition of schema details, making it appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is underequipped. It provides the core purpose and use case but omits essential operational context like how x/y position the node, how width/height interplay with aspect ratio, and what happens when parentId is absent. The agent must infer too much to invoke the tool correctly.

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 43%, and the description adds no additional meaning for the undocumented parameters. The svg parameter is already described with an example in the schema, but x, y, name, and parentId lack elaboration. The description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap, leaving the agent to rely solely on defaults and field names.

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 resource ('vector node from raw SVG markup') to clearly state what the tool does. It explicitly distinguishes from simple shape tools by mentioning charts, icons, curves, and shapes that can't be made with rectangles/ellipses/lines, aligning with sibling tools like figma_create_rectangle and figma_create_ellipse.

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 says 'Use this for charts, icons, curves, and any complex shapes that can't be made with rectangles/ellipses/lines,' providing clear when-to-use context and an exclusion criterion. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for simple shapes, but the contrast is clear enough to guide selection.

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