propose_token_remap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only — does NOT touch the Figma file,' which is a critical behavioral trait. It also mentions the return format (candidate tokens with scores and reasoning, plus ambiguous list). No contradictions.

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 description is three sentences, front-loading purpose and key behavioral information. It is reasonably concise, though the sentence about newTokens could be slightly shorter. Overall, it is well-structured and efficient.

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 explains the return value adequately. However, with 7 parameters (1 required), only 'newTokens' is described in detail. Parameters like 'url', 'depth', and 'hints' are left unexplained, making the tool incomplete for an agent to use correctly without additional knowledge.

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 0%, and the description only elaborates on 'newTokens' by stating it accepts any reasonable shape (Tokens Studio export, single-set object, DTCG, or flat list). The other six parameters (url, depth, hints, nodeId, fileKey, preferredTheme) are not described at all, leaving their semantics ambiguous.

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 description clearly states the action: 'Plan a token remap for a Figma subtree against a NEW token set the user pasted as JSON.' It specifies the resource (Figma subtree) and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'apply_token_remap' by directing the agent to pass the plan to that tool after resolving ambiguity.

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 usage context: 'Read-only' and 'Pass the returned plan to apply_token_remap once you've resolved ambiguity.' It implies when to use this tool (planning phase) and what to do next. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with other sibling tools like 'suggest_tokens' or 'get_token_catalog'.

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