Import library assets

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive; the description adds context annotations cannot: only published assets import, unpublished ones return Figma's reason per item, the exact per-item result shape, and editor support (Design supported, FigJam/Slides unverified). This is rich disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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-loads the core action and outcome, then key provenance, then the alternative, then the return shape and editor support. Dense with backticked identifiers and slightly run-on, but each clause carries unique information.

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, so the description carries the burden of the return contract — and it delivers the exact per-item shape (`key, kind, ok, id?, name?, type?, error?`) plus failure behavior. Combined with the usage and provenance guidance, an agent has everything needed to call 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?

Schema coverage is 67% and documents key, session and idempotencyKey; the description adds genuine meaning by explaining where keys are sourced and which sibling tools consume the returned ids. It doesn't elaborate on `kind` values or the assets array shape, but the enum is self-explanatory, so the added value is above the schema baseline.

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 (bring/import) and resource (published library assets: components, component sets, styles, variables), and frames the outcome — the local ids other tools consume. It explicitly names the consuming siblings (figma_create_instance, figma_apply_style_to_node, figma_bind_variable_to_node), making it immediately distinguishable from them.

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 the when (published assets only), the where the keys come from (figma_get_design_context, figma_get_component, or a library file opened as another session), and a clear when-not/alternative: placing a single library component is handled by figma_create_instance's `componentKey`. 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.