figma_create_instance

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, but it only says 'create an instance' without detailing mutational effects, permissions required, failure cases (e.g., invalid componentId), or consequences for the document. The user cannot infer side effects or error behavior.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no redundant phrasing. While extremely short, it is not bloated or overly verbose; however, it lacks necessary detail, preventing a perfect score for structure.

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 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It provides only the basic purpose, omitting parameter details, usage context, behavioral nuances, and any return/error information, making it inadequate for an agent to reliably use the tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it mentions no parameters at all. The required componentId and optional properties (x, y, name, scaleX, scaleY, parentId) are completely unaddressed, offering no semantic meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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 an instance of a component' uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('instance of a component'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like figma_create_component, which creates a component definition. It precisely states the tool's function without ambiguity.

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, such as whether to use it for placing repeated components in a design, or prerequisites like needing a valid componentId. There is no mention of exclusions or comparison with related creation tools.

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