create_node_from_svg

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: Figma wraps the result in a FRAME containing the vector paths. But it omits failure behavior (invalid SVG), permission needs, and how position/parenting resolves beyond what the schema states.

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 tight sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the FRAME-wrapping behavior following as supporting context.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description partially compensates by explaining what gets produced (a FRAME containing vector paths). Remaining gaps – coordinate behavior and error handling – are minor given the fully documented schema.

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 all five parameters are already documented in structured data. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema (the SVG sizing hint is already in the param description), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Create vector nodes from SVG markup'. The parenthetical use case and the note about FRAME wrapping make it immediately distinguishable from sibling creation tools like create_rectangle, create_frame, and create_text.

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 parenthetical '(e.g. to replace raster PNG icons with editable vectors)' gives a concrete triggering scenario, which is clear context. However, it offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives among the many creation siblings.

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