figcraft_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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the concrete output shape (three side-by-side artboards at fixed widths, vertical Auto-Layout root, Obsidian/Titanium palette) but omits side effects: whether existing canvas content is replaced or appended to, whether the operation is reversible, and what the 'Harness MCP responsive verification' integration actually does. That last phrase is marketing-level rather than operational.

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 puts the action and the three breakpoints first, with supporting detail trailing. It is dense and slightly run-on, and the trailing Harness MCP clause adds little, but there is no filler paragraph and nothing is buried.

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 multi-artboard generator with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what will be produced but not the conditions of invocation (open document state, permissions) or the result contract an agent would need to verify success. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool of this 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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the theme enum with its 'luxury (Obsidian & Amber Gold)' value. The description restates the luxury theme but adds nothing about the projectName parameter, so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema baseline.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Buat sistem 3 Artboard Responsif') plus concrete scope: three synchronized artboards at 1440/768/375px with a vertical Auto-Layout root frame and a named theme. This distinguishes it from the single-frame sibling figcraft_create_autolayout_frame, though it never names or explicitly contrasts any sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied by the composite nature of the tool: an agent can infer it is the one-shot option for a full responsive trio, but the description never says when to prefer it over create_autolayout_frame + apply_luxury_theme done manually, nor does it list prerequisites such as an already-open file.

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