import_figma

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions conversion of design elements and the dry run feature, but lacks details on mutability (overwrite vs. create), idempotency, required permissions, or async behavior. Basic but not comprehensive.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sets the purpose, the second provides a key usage tip. No extraneous words, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 the complexity of an import tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers core functionality and a dry run recommendation but omits important details like return values (preview vs. actual), error handling, or whether the operation is synchronous. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters. The description adds context for the dryRun parameter ('Use dryRun=true first'), but the schema already explains each parameter's meaning. The description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 imports a Figma file's design system into Penpot, specifying the converted elements (colors, typography, components, page structure). It uses a specific verb ('Import') and resource ('Figma file's design system'), and is distinct from sibling tools like get_components or create_element.

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 explicitly advises to use dryRun=true first to preview conversion before writing, providing clear usage context. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or offer alternatives, missing some aspects of full guidance.

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