penpot_add_variant

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose whether this operation is destructive, what permissions are needed, rate limits, or error conditions. The description only covers function, not behavioral impact.

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, well-structured paragraph with no fluff. It front-loads purpose and then explains containerId source and return values. Slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points for parameters) could improve it.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters (5 required) and no output schema, the description omits explanations for fileId, pageId, and groupName. It relies on cross-references to other tools without fully explaining the variant parameter. The agent would struggle to correctly invoke this tool without additional knowledge.

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%. Despite a highly complex variant parameter with extensive nested objects, the description only vaguely mentions it mirrors shape specs. It provides no guidance on required structure, property meanings, or usage patterns beyond a cross-reference to another tool.

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 verb (add) and resource (new variant to existing variant group). It distinguishes from siblings by referencing the prerequisite tool (penpot_create_variant_group) and explaining containerId origin. This makes the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 explains when to use this tool (after creating a variant group) and how to obtain the containerId. It mentions the return values link to penpot_add_component_instance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like penpot_create_variant_group.

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