figma_create_style

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral implications. It only mentions the plugin connection requirement, but fails to mention that the tool creates a new style (mutation), where it is created, or potential errors. This is a significant transparency gap for a creation tool.

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 short (one 9-word sentence), which is concise but sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded, but under-specifies; the sentence itself is not wasted, yet the brevity does not serve the tool's complexity.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description is the only source of guidance. It fails to explain the structure of `properties`, the meaning of each type (including missing GRID), or what the tool returns. This is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters including a nested object.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter semantics beyond the literal type examples (paint, text, effect) that are already in the enum. It does not explain the `properties` object, `name`, or `description` parameters.

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 clearly identifies the action (create) and resource (reusable style), and lists example types. However, it omits the GRID type present in the schema, so it is slightly incomplete.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like apply_style or get_style. The only additional context is the prerequisite 'Requires plugin connection,' which is not a usage guideline but does imply that a plugin connection must already be established.

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