penpot_create_variant_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it creates a container frame and returns component IDs, but does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or any destructive behavior. For a creation tool, more behavioral context (e.g., whether it modifies existing shapes) is needed.

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 paragraph that efficiently conveys the core concept without excessive verbosity. However, it could benefit from a more structured breakdown (e.g., bullet points for key aspects) but remains sufficiently concise.

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 (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It omits details on required parameters, return value format, and prerequisites. The reference to penpot_create_component is helpful but insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without external 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%: the description does not explain any of the 10 parameters except a vague reference to 'variants' accepting same specs as penpot_create_component. No parameter meanings, formats, or valid values are clarified, leaving the agent dependent solely on the schema, which lacks descriptions.

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 tool creates a variant group and explains its purpose with a concrete example (Button with Type variants). It distinguishes from sibling tools by name, but does not explicitly contrast with penpot_add_variant, so slightly less than perfect.

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 implies when to use (when you need variant groups with property axes) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives like penpot_add_variant. No usage context beyond the basic function.

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