create_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does contribute real behavioral information — the components come 'siap pakai' (pre-styled) with an 'anti-overflow guarantee', implying no further overflow fixing is needed — but it is silent on what is actually returned (node IDs for wiring?), how many child nodes get created, and required document state.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the capability and the standout guarantee, with the three variants listed in a parallel structure. It is marketing-flavoured ('Luxury Obsidian Titanium', 'radiant gold') but nearly every clause carries information about output content.

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?

Three required parameters with a nested, loosely-typed `options` object and no output schema make this moderately complex, yet the description never states the return value or the failure/lookup semantics for `parent`. It adequately describes what gets built but not enough for an agent to plan the follow-up call (e.g. setting properties on the new node).

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by mapping each `type` value to the option fields it expects (navbar → logo/links/CTA, hero → badge/display/dual buttons, card → media/tag/title/body/price). This gives the otherwise open `options` object concrete meaning that the schema's 'additionalProperties: {}' does not.

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 opens with a specific verb + resource ('Hasilkan komponen UI modern') and enumerates the three exact output types matching the enum (navbar, hero, card) with their visual contents. That makes it distinguishable from siblings like create_node or create_autolayout_frame, though no sibling is ever named explicitly.

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?

It never says when to pick this tool over figcraft_create_node or figcraft_create_autolayout_frame, nor what prerequisites apply (e.g. that `parent` must be an existing frame). The only implied guidance is that callers choose one of three types; there are no exclusions or alternative-routing advice.

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