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

Adds genuine behavioral context beyond annotations: partial-update semantics (omitted fields stay unchanged) and that module membership is unaffected. However, the description says the tool can remove the component's main Figma frame while annotations declare destructiveHint=false, a tension that is not reconciled; no permission or reversibility detail is given.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary operation and the effects on omitted fields; only two clauses before the consent caveat. Tight, though the second sentence about product-structure ownership is slightly editorial rather than operational.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers scope (what changes, what does not) and the consent requirement, which is enough for correct invocation. It falls short only on permission prerequisites and on clarifying the destructiveHint tension around frame removal.

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% and every field is documented, including the design=null removal semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the general 'omitted fields unchanged' rule, not per-parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb (updates) plus resource (component) and enumerates exactly what is mutable: name, description, or removal of the main Figma frame. It also clarifies what is NOT touched (module membership), which cleanly separates it from module_update and component_create.

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?

Provides one explicit usage condition – only act at the user's request or with their consent – which is real guidance, but never names alternatives or says when a sibling (component_create, module_update) should be chosen instead. Implied rather than complete routing guidance.

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