figcraft_create_and_open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the file is written to disk and then opened in the user's active GUI window without manual intervention, which is meaningful side-effect context. It does not address what happens if the target path already exists (overwrite vs. error), permission requirements, or failure behavior.

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 that leads with the step designation and the create action, then the open action. Capitalized emphasis words are slightly noisy but the sentence earns its place overall.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the core action but omits the return value (created path? window handle?) and overwrite/error semantics. Adequate to invoke, incomplete for handling edge cases.

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% and both parameters carry examples, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description's phrase 'beserta namanya' loosely signals that a project name accompanies the file, but adds no format, path-resolution, or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 states a concrete compound action: create a .figcraft canvas file on disk with its name, then immediately open it in the active FigCraft GUI window. The verb+resource pairing is specific and the two-step nature is clear. It only weakly differentiates from siblings like figcraft_open_file and figcraft_create_node, which it never mentions.

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 canonical starting step for a design workflow, which is useful framing. However, it never states when to prefer this over figcraft_open_file (existing file) or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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