figma-mcp-go

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

Annotations indicate destructive=true and idempotent=false, which align with 'Create a new frame'. The description adds value by specifying placement behavior (current page vs parent node) not covered by annotations. However, it fails to disclose what the tool returns (e.g., node ID), error conditions, or side effects given the lack of output schema.

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?

Single sentence of 11 words is appropriately front-loaded with the action. No redundant or wasted text. However, given the high complexity (19 parameters, destructive mutation), the extreme brevity may underserve the agent's need for context, preventing a perfect score.

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 destructive creation tool with 19 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits critical information about return values (what identifies the created frame?), error handling, and whether the created frame has default auto-layout or sizing behavior. Relies too heavily on schema alone.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage across 19 parameters, the baseline is met. The description mentions 'parent node' which loosely references the parentId parameter, but adds no additional semantic context about coordinate systems, auto-layout behavior, or parameter interactions beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Clear verb 'Create' and resource 'frame' with scope 'on the current page or inside a parent node'. Accurately describes the hierarchical placement options. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from similar sibling tools like create_component that may also create frame-like containers.

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?

Implies usage context through mention of 'current page' and 'parent node', hinting at the parentId parameter behavior. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus create_component or group_nodes, and omits prerequisites like requiring valid parentId if specified.

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