create_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose that drawing is LIVE on the canvas (a document mutation) and that it auto-sanitizes \n and auto-applies textAutoResize: 'height'. It omits prerequisites (open file), whether changes are undoable, failure behavior, and what is returned, leaving real gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with the workflow position, verb, and supported types stated early. The parenthetical type list is long but functional; nothing is truly redundant.

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 nine-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior but leaves the agent without prerequisites, side-effect scope, or result expectations. Adequate but with clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters, setting the baseline at 3. The description reinforces the text-handling behavior (sanitization, auto-wrap) and the props escape hatch, but adds no new syntax or constraint details.

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 verb (gambar/draw) and enumerates the node types it can produce, plus its position as 'Langkah 3 Kanonik'. It does not explicitly contrast itself with neighbors like create_autolayout_frame or create_component, which also create nodes, so an agent could still be unsure which creator to pick.

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 phrase 'Langkah 3 Kanonik' implies this is a step in a prescribed workflow, but no condition tells the agent when to use this versus create_autolayout_frame, create_component, or batch. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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