figma_comments

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: the mandatory two-step posting process (preview then confirm:true) and the fact that comments are visible to others. It also explains that without a REST token, the tool only explains setup. Annotations already convey read-write and non-destructive nature, so the description adds valuable nuance about confirmation and visibility.

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 but logically structured: overall purpose, then list action details, then post action details, then a prerequisite note. It is relatively concise with no extraneous content, though it could be slightly more terse or bulleted for easier scanning.

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 description adequately covers list return values and the post preview requirement, but does not explicitly describe what a successful post returns (e.g., the created comment object) or handle edge cases like missing fileKey. Given no output schema, more detail on post response would improve 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that list returns specific fields (ids, authors, node anchors, resolved state), that post requires message with optional nodeId or replyTo, and that fileKey defaults to the file open in Figma Desktop. This context goes beyond the parameter descriptions in 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 reads or posts Figma comments, specifying the two actions (list and post) and their contexts (design review feedback). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing solely on comments, with no overlap in names like figma_connect or figma_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?

The description implies use for design review feedback ('design review feedback lives here'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives among siblings. It includes a conditional guideline about requiring a configured REST token, but lacks direct comparisons or exclusion scenarios.

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