figcraft_create_node

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose useful behavior beyond the schema — LIVE canvas mutation, automatic sanitization of literal \n in text, and automatic textAutoResize 'height' to prevent overflow. It does not say what is returned (crucially the new node's ID, needed as a 'parent' for later calls), whether it requires an open document, or whether existing canvas content is affected.

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 no redundancy; the enumerated node types and the two automatic behaviors are packed efficiently. The 'Langkah 3 Kanonik' preamble adds little for tool selection but costs only a few words.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with a nested free-form props object and no annotations or output schema, the description is only partially sufficient. It explains text handling but omits the return value (node ID), the required document/page state, and how it relates to the alternate creation tools, leaving real gaps for correct chaining.

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 all nine parameters are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds a little meaning for 'text' (sanitized, wrapped) and textAutoResize, but says nothing about the free-form 'props' object, the coordinate system, or the 'parent' ID fallback beyond what the schema already states.

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+resource: drawing visual elements (frame, rectangle, text, ellipse, button, etc.) LIVE onto the canvas, which is clearly distinct from read/audit tools. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as figcraft_create_autolayout_frame, figcraft_create_component, or create_node, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which constructor 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 only usage signal is the phrase 'Langkah 3 Kanonik' (canonical step 3), which implies a position in some workflow but never states when to use this tool, when not to, or which alternative to prefer. No prerequisites (e.g., an open file/active page, a valid parent ID) are mentioned.

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