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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the deterministic engine, the return shape ('paste-ready payload plus a short instruction'), the section-at-a-time layer limit, and the plan requirement. Missing only error/failure behavior and any rate limits.

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 purpose, then targets, then operational constraints — the ordering matches how an agent needs the information. It is dense but nearly every clause carries signal; the parenthetical '(same frame → same output, no LLM guessing)' is slightly promotional yet justifies the determinism claim.

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 6-parameter tool with nested options and no output schema, the description covers purpose, targets, limits, plan gating, and return format. The main remaining gap is error/edge-case behavior (invalid node, layer-limit exceeded, expired hosted assets), but nothing essential for a correct first call is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by elaborating each target format (container JSON for Elementor paste, core block markup, self-contained HTML, Oxygen Classic vs 6). The nested `options` fields are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 and resource ('Convert ONE Figma frame into a native WordPress builder layout'), names the engine and its deterministic property, and enumerates all six output targets. The 'ONE frame' emphasis and target list make it unmistakable against siblings like inspect_figma or list_targets.

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?

Gives concrete when-to guidance ('Convert sections one at a time (hero, features, footer…)'), an explicit failure condition ('A whole page in one call hits the layer limit'), and a prerequisite ('Requires a ready→made Pro or Lifetime plan'). It does not name a sibling tool or say when to prefer inspect_figma first, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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