figmad-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address permissions needed, whether this requires an active Figma file/document context, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. The mention of 'fills and rounded corners' hints at capabilities but doesn't fully describe behavioral traits like default values or constraints.

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 concise at just two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, and the second adds useful capability information. Every element earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information first.

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 this is a creation/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to address behavioral aspects. While it efficiently states what the tool does and hints at capabilities, it doesn't cover important context like what happens after creation (does it return the created object?), what context is required, or error conditions. For a mutation tool in a design environment, this leaves significant 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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't attempt to describe non-existent parameters. It does mention capabilities ('fills and rounded corners') which might relate to how the rectangle is configured, but since there are no actual parameters, this is acceptable. Baseline for 0 parameters with full coverage is 4.

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 rectangle shape') and target resource ('in Figma'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'create_frame' or 'create_text' by specifying rectangle creation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all potential shape-creation tools. The description is specific but could be more precise about its unique scope.

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 like 'create_frame' or 'create_text'. It mentions capabilities ('Can have fills and rounded corners') but doesn't indicate when this is the appropriate choice over other creation tools or what prerequisites might exist. There's no explicit when/when-not usage context.

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