create_component_from_node

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key trait: the node is replaced in place by the new component, so an agent knows the original node no longer exists. It omits other useful traits such as permission requirements, effect on children, or error behavior, so it adds real value but is not rich.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core action ('convert an existing node into a main Component') is front-loaded ahead of the in-place replacement note.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and its main side effect. It leaves the return value unaddressed (no output schema to fall back on), which is a minor gap rather than a serious omission.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents nodeId and the optional name. The description adds no syntax, default-naming, or format detail beyond that, which is the correct baseline-3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb (convert) and target resource (an existing node into a Figma main Component), and the term 'main Component' conceptually separates it from sibling instance tools like create_component_instance. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting any sibling, so it lands at a clear-but-undifferentiated 4.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative named (e.g. versus create_component_instance or clone_node). The example 'e.g. a frame' only faintly implies the input scenario, leaving routing to inference.

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