create_shape_with_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the basic function and availability, but does not explain important behaviors such as whether the shape is created on the current page, how text is handled (e.g., overflow, alignment), or if any default values apply. The description carries the full burden but falls short.

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?

The description is a single sentence of 10 words, perfectly concise and front-loaded. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary information.

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?

Despite 14 parameters (including nested objects) and no output schema, the description provides no details on default behavior, prerequisites, or return values. It does not clarify how the shape and text are combined, what happens if parentId is omitted, or if there are any constraints. For a tool of this complexity, the description is incomplete.

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%, meaning all 14 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the tool's purpose. Per guidelines, high coverage sets a baseline of 3, and no extra value is provided beyond that 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 clearly states the action ('Create a shape with text'), identifies the resource (a shape with text), and adds context about availability in Figma Slides and FigJam, which helps differentiate from potentially similar tools. The verb is specific and the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_rectangle or create_text. With many sibling tools that create shapes or text separately, the lack of usage context (e.g., 'Use this to create a shape with embedded text in one step') is a notable gap.

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