figma_push_variables

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 mentions 'Creates or updates variable collections,' which gives some behavioral insight, but lacks details on whether the operation is destructive, required authentication, rate limits, or effects on existing data. The description is clear but minimally transparent.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's action and scope. There is no extraneous information, and every word serves a purpose. It is front-loaded with the key verb and noun.

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 moderate complexity of pushing variables and the absence of an output schema, the description could be more complete. It does not mention the return value, error conditions, or any prerequisites like authentication. While it covers the core action, it lacks additional context that would help an agent use 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 100%, and the schema already describes each parameter adequately (file_key and variables with their types and formats). The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: writing design tokens back to Figma as variables. It uses a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('design tokens... as Variables') and distinguishes from siblings like figma_context_parser, which reads context rather than modifies. There is no confusion about what this tool does.

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 implies usage for pushing design tokens to Figma, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use figma_context_parser instead). There is no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, relying on the user's context.

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