How to work in Figma (skills)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely new behavior: it works without the plugin, every answer ends with exact calls for other sections/skills, and under BRIDGE_PROCESS=strict keyframe tools wait until this session reads the motion/storyboard skill. That gating disclosure is valuable but not exhaustive on caching or response size.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a dense run-on stitched with semicolons and backticks that takes effort to parse. Given the 41-value enum some length is warranted, yet the routing rules could be structured far more cleanly.

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 carries the return burden and does so (Markdown playbook, footer lists of follow-up calls). Combined with the strict-mode gating note, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only response size/shape detail is thin.

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 semantics beyond the terse schema text: it explains what topic values select (a skill, one of its sections, or 'skills'), gives the task-to-topic routing, and describes what section does and where the valid list comes from.

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: read this before a design/motion/review task, returning a skill playbook as Markdown. An agent can immediately distinguish this documentation/routing tool from the ~90 mutation and query siblings.

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?

Explicit when-to-use routing: 'Read this before a design, motion or review task', then 'a motion piece starts with storyboard, keyframes with motion, and a review with critique.' It maps task type to the correct topic value, so nothing is left to inference.

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