create_frame

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a new frame' which implies a mutating side effect, but does not mention what the tool returns, whether it requires authentication, whether it appends to a parent, or any other behavioral details. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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, succinct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise. However, given the tool's complexity (20 parameters), the extreme brevity could be considered under-specification, but it remains free of fluff and is easy to parse.

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?

This is a complex tool with 20 parameters, six enums, nested objects, and no output schema. The description is only one sentence, which does not explain return values, the role of optional parameters like parentId and layoutMode, or any side effects. The schema covers parameter meaning but not overall tool behavior, leaving the description 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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but the schema already documents all parameters including nested objects and enums.

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+resource ('Create a new frame in Figma') that clearly identifies the tool's function and the object type. It distinguishes itself from sibling creation tools like create_rectangle or create_text by naming the frame resource, though it does not explicitly discuss alternatives.

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, no prerequisites, and no context about workflow. It simply states the action without explaining scenarios where creating a frame is appropriate or how it relates to other creation/modification tools.

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