figma-mcp-go

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

Annotations already declare this is destructive (creates new entity) and not idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context about placement scoping (page vs. parentId) not covered by annotations. However, it omits details about return values or side effects like node naming conventions.

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 with zero redundancy. The core action ('Create a new rectangle') is front-loaded, with placement options following. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given 8 fully-documented parameters and annotations covering safety hints, the description provides minimal viable context. However, for a destructive creation tool with no output schema, it should ideally mention what gets created (e.g., a node) or return behavior. Lacks sibling differentiation guidance present in high-quality examples.

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, the schema carries the full burden of parameter documentation. The description mentions 'parent node' which loosely references the parentId parameter, but adds no syntax details, format constraints, or usage patterns beyond the schema definitions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') with a clear resource ('rectangle') and scope ('current page or inside a parent node'). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling shape tools like create_ellipse, the specific resource type provides implicit distinction.

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 description implies usage context by mentioning placement options (current page vs. parent node), but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like create_ellipse or create_frame. No 'when-not-to-use' or prerequisites are mentioned.

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