brand_extract_figma

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two-phase behavior, input formats, and override logic, but does not explicitly state if the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The description is adequate but could be more transparent about behavioral traits.

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then efficiently lists formats and phases. It is concise given the complexity, though a bulleted list could improve scannability. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a good job explaining the data flow, input origins, and phase separation. It mentions related tools (get_variable_defs, get_design_context). However, it lacks details on output format or error handling, which would enhance completeness.

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% (all 8 parameters have descriptions), and the tool description adds high-level context: it explains the relationship between inputs (e.g., variable_map from get_variable_defs, design_context from get_design_context) and the phased usage. This goes beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 tool extracts brand identity from Figma design files, explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'brand_extract_web' by stating 'NOT for web extraction', and explains multiple input formats and phases (plan/ingest). This exceeds the requirement of a specific verb+resource with sibling differentiation.

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 clear context for when to use (Figma design files, not web extraction) and describes the two modes (plan returns Figma MCP tools, ingest processes data). It mentions source priority but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives beyond web extraction. While not perfect, it offers strong usage direction.

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