figma_comments

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral information beyond the annotations: all post/reply calls preview and require confirm:true, and a missing token returns setup. The annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the confirmation and auth details are valuable additions.

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 compact and front-loads the purpose and critical confirm behavior. Both sentences earn their place, though 'REST comments' is slightly cryptic and the semicolon-heavy first sentence could be clearer as a full phrase.

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?

The schema covers parameters well and the description adds critical behavioral details, but with no output schema the return values are not described: no mention of what list returns, what a preview response looks like, or pagination. For an 8-parameter tool with multiple modes, this leaves some gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters. The description mentions confirm:true, but the schema already explains the preview and confirmation flow; no additional parameter semantics are provided. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the resource (comments) and the core actions: list feedback, and post/reply with preview behavior. It is clear enough to distinguish this from sibling tools like figma_inspect or figma_spec, though 'REST comments' is a bit terse and doesn't explicitly say 'Figma file comments'.

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?

It gives practical usage context: listing is the default action, while posting/reply always goes through a preview and requires confirm:true. It also notes the missing-token setup response. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but no sibling tool appears to handle comments, so this is acceptable.

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