Convert to component

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs additive context. It supplies the failure conditions and the fact that the original node is preserved with its children and a new id is returned, plus editor/platform availability. It stops short of describing what happens to existing instances or references to the original node.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by constraints and the sibling routing. No filler, and the parenthetical asides earn their place.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully notes the returned id, and it covers preconditions and platform scope. It could say more about the return payload or how the new component relates to the original node, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (including name defaulting and idempotencyKey retry semantics) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds essentially no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Turn an existing node ... into a reusable COMPONENT') and clarifies the colloquial equivalent ('the toolbar's Create component'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like figma_get_component or figma_create_instance.

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?

Explicitly states preconditions where conversion is impossible (already a component, or inside a component/instance) and names the follow-up alternative for placing copies (figma_create_instance). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative structure the dimension rewards.

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