create_responsive_system

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the structural output (three synced artboards, vertical auto-layout root) and the applied theme, but omits preconditions (does a file need to be open?), side effects on existing canvas content, and return values. Meaningful but incomplete behavioral disclosure for a mutating creation 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 verb first and no filler; the parenthetical dimensions are efficient. It is dense with jargon ('Harness MCP responsive verification') but every clause adds substance.

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 that spawns three artboards with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the visible output structure and theme well but leaves preconditions and return behavior unstated. Adequate but with clear gaps relative to the tool's complexity.

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 a documented theme enum and projectName example, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes the luxury theme value ('Luxury Obsidian Titanium') and adds nothing about projectName, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb+resource: it creates a 3-artboard responsive system on canvas, and names the exact breakpoints (Desktop 1440px, Tablet 768px, Mobile 375px) plus the auto-layout root structure. An agent knows precisely what gets produced, though it never differentiates itself from siblings like create_autolayout_frame or figcraft_create_responsive_system.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named despite several overlapping siblings (create_autolayout_frame, apply_luxury_theme). The 'Harness MCP responsive verification' clause implies downstream context but does not route the agent to or away from this tool.

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