create_and_open

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the notable side effect: the file is automatically opened in the user's active GUI window on their monitor without manual action, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It omits equally important traits such as what happens if the target path already exists (overwrite? error?), permission requirements, and failure modes.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the canonical step framing, which is good. However, the tail is padded with redundant emphasis ("otomatis LANGSUNG" plus "tanpa perlu user buka manual") that restates the same auto-open guarantee twice rather than adding 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?

For a simple two-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what happens end to end. Gaps remain around overwrite/conflict behavior and the resulting document state, which matter for a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 both filePath and projectName documented with examples in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about path format, relative-vs-absolute resolution, or the role of projectName beyond the name field.

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?

States a concrete two-part action: create a .figcraft canvas file on disk with a given name, then open it in the active FigCraft GUI window. Verb and resource are specific. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similar sibling 'figcraft_create_and_open' or from 'figcraft_open_file'/'figcraft_save_file', leaving an agent to infer whether these are duplicates.

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?

"Langkah 1 & 2 Kanonik" implies this is the intended first step of a workflow, which is useful positioning. But there is no explicit when-not, no stated alternative (e.g., use open_file when the file already exists), and no prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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