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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by explaining it converts designs into files. It also discloses the authentication requirement (X-Figma-Token) and the asset-download behavior, which are behavioral details beyond the schema. It stops short of rate limits or failure modes, but the key side effects and prerequisites are covered.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence. The description is organized into labeled sections (Authentication, Inputs, Returns, Asset Handling), which makes it easy to scan. It is somewhat longer than strictly necessary, but every section adds distinct value; no filler or repetition of the input schema.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description enumerates the return aspects (generated code files, assets list, usage guidelines) and explains how to handle assets by downloading them from the returned URLs. It also states the auth requirement upfront. For a code-generation tool of this complexity, this is a complete picture an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 schema descriptions already cover the parameters well (with defaults and examples), giving a baseline of 3. The tool description goes further by teaching the agent how to extract fileKey from a URL and how to convert '-' to ':' for node IDs, plus recommending detection from the user's project to pick framework, styling, and language. This is actionable guidance that materially improves parameter selection.

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 opening line states a specific verb and object ('Convert a Figma design to production-ready code') that precisely captures the tool's function. The description continues with concrete parameter explanations)Skip. Among the sibling tools (artifact-create, design_system-get_manifest, etc.), this one is clearly the Figma-to-code converter, so there is no ambiguity about its unique role.

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 clear context for when the tool is used (when a Figma design should become code) and gives practical instructions for parameter selection, notably 'Detect from the user's project' for framework, styling, and language. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusion conditions, but sibling names make the distinction obvious.

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