create_rectangle

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. While 'Create a new rectangle' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't specify permissions required, whether this affects the document state permanently, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a node ID). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple creation tool and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a node ID or success status), error handling, or how it integrates with Figma's document model. For a tool that modifies state, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 100%, with all parameters clearly documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'Height of the rectangle', 'Optional name for the rectangle'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 states the action ('Create a new rectangle') and the target resource ('in Figma'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_frame' or 'create_component_instance', which might also create visual elements in Figma, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific shape creation tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'create_frame' and 'create_component_instance' that also create visual elements, there's no indication of whether this is for basic shapes, when rectangles are preferred over frames, or any prerequisites for use in Figma.

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