figmad-mcp

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. It mentions the plugin requirement but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or what happens upon creation (e.g., default properties, positioning). For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. It efficiently adds necessary context without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the prerequisite into its own clause for clarity.

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 (creation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and a key prerequisite but misses behavioral details like what the frame defaults to or how it integrates with other tools. It's complete enough for basic use but has clear gaps.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds context about the plugin requirement, which is beyond the schema. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 frame') and resource ('in Figma'), with additional context about frames being 'the primary container for designs.' It distinguishes from siblings like create_rectangle or create_text by specifying the frame type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires the Figma plugin to be connected'), which implies when the tool can be used. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like create_rectangle or update_node, nor does it specify exclusions or complementary tools.

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