figcraft_create_component

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

With no annotations present the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful traits: the components come pre-styled in a specific luxury theme and are guaranteed overflow-free, which tells the agent it is a hostile-layout-safe mutation. However, it never says that the tool mutates the document, that a file must be open, what is returned (node IDs?), or how failure is signalled.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the value proposition (ready-made luxury components with anti-overflow) before the variant list. It is efficient, though the heavy inline enumeration of variant internals makes it slightly hard to scan.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with a free-form nested options object and no output schema, the description covers what the tool produces but leaves out the return value, preconditions, and which option keys are meaningful for which variant. Adequate, with clear gaps an agent would have to discover by trial.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning for the `type` enum by describing the composition of each variant (logo + links + CTA, badge + display + dual buttons, media + tag + title + body + price), but it adds nothing about `parent` or the nested `options` keys beyond what the schema already offers.

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 and resource ('Hasilkan komponen UI ... siap pakai') and enumerates the three concrete variants (navbar, hero, card) with their constituent parts, which lets an agent predict the output. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling node-creation tools such as create_node or create_autolayout_frame, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives like apply_luxury_theme, create_autolayout_frame, or fix_overflow. The 'anti-overflow guarantee' hints at a reason to prefer this tool, but the agent must infer that, and no prerequisites (open file, valid parent frame) are stated.

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