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

Annotations only flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial context beyond that: partial-failure semantics ('a failed frame does not stop the others'), the full per-frame status set, the designToken as the only design link, and re-import refresh behavior that preserves markers. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral disclosure.

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 core action is front-loaded, but the description is a single dense compound sentence with semicolon chains that is hard to scan. Most clauses earn their place, yet the structure could be broken into clearer segments.

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 compensates by documenting per-frame return values (status enum values, designID, designToken, error/action). For a 7-parameter tool it covers targets and behavior well, though it omits prerequisites such as whether the target entity must already exist.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: moduleID/componentID set the module's or component's main frame and are constrained to one frame with no marker. That explains the otherwise opaque parameters beyond their schema descriptions.

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 (Imports) and resource (Figma frames) plus the target entity types (task, bug or feature), with an analogy to pasting a design in the web app. An agent can distinguish this from sibling design_comment_reply and design_comments without opening the schema.

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 gives context ('into a task, bug or feature through the company's Figma integration') which implies when the tool applies, but never names alternatives or states when NOT to use it. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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