Import SVG (icon / vector)

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (idempotent=true, destructive=false, readOnly=false). The description goes beyond them by disclosing the return shape ('The result lists the painted layers as `vectorIds`') and the recolouring behaviour ('recolours every painted vector'), which matter because there is no output schema and no way to know the return form otherwise.

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 the purpose, then parameter behaviour, then environment caveats — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The parameter sentence is long and clause-stacked, which slightly hurts scannability but does not waste words.

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 12-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the design-critical pieces: what gets created, how colour binding works, where it lands, and the returned `vectorIds`. Parameters like x/y, name, sizing and session are left to the schema with no compensating text, which is the only real gap.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the description still adds real semantics: `width`/`height` 'scales the drawing with its vectors', `color` recolours all painted vectors, `colorVariable` 'binds them to a COLOR variable' so the icon follows the token, and `parentId` places it into a frame. This is meaningful guidance the schema text does not supply.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Place SVG markup as editable vectors', scoped to icons, logos and illustrations. This is clearly distinct from figma_create_vector (drawn geometry) and figma_import_image (raster assets), so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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 usage context — when to use `color` ('the usual way to put an icon in the brand colour') vs `colorVariable` (token-driven, stroke-only icons stay stroke-only) — and states platform availability ('Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides'). It never names a sibling alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.

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