figma_auth_login

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 that the tool launches the user's default browser, returns a clickable Markdown URL, and produces a JSON with auth_url, markdown_link, and instructions. This gives the agent a good sense of what happens and what to expect, even without an output schema.

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 organized with 'Do what' and 'Expected output' sections, which makes it skimmable. It is not overly verbose and each segment adds value. However, the 'LOCAL TOOL' prefix and the split into labeled sections make it slightly less concise than a tight two-sentence description, but still well-structured.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential context: what action it performs, how it behaves (browser launch), what output to expect, and when to call it. It does not mention edge cases like browser failure or re-authentication flows, but for this simple tool the description is sufficiently 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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so per calibration rules the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it appropriately focuses on behavior and output.

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 states a specific action (starts interactive one-click OAuth authorization) and a resource (Figma), and clarifies what the tool produces (a URL and instructions). It clearly differentiates from siblings like figma_auth_status by focusing on initiating login rather than checking status.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('when authentication is missing, expired, or when the user wants to connect their Figma account'). While it does not name alternative tools explicitly, the conditions imply when not to use it (e.g., when already authenticated). This is clear context without a direct exclusion list.

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