figma_connect

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

Annotations show openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating the tool is not destructive but may have effects beyond its scope. The description adds useful context about the 'Safe Mode' constraint and that it returns an access key and instructions, which partially discloses behavior. However, it does not explain what 'Safe Mode' entails, network requirements, or if prior connections are invalidated.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the critical constraint ('Safe Mode') and summarize the core output. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy or wasted words.

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 0 parameters, no output schema, and 11 sibling tools, the description is moderately complete. It explains the tool's primary output (key + instructions) and a behavioral guard ('never Yolo'). However, it lacks information on error cases, prerequisites (e.g., existing account), or how this differs from figma_pairing, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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 zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the parameter space. The description adds semantic value by explaining the purpose of the tool (connect, generate key, provide instructions), which helps the agent understand what to expect despite no parameters needed.

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 explicitly states the tool connects to Figma in 'Safe Mode (never Yolo)', generates a plugin access key if needed, and returns it with instructions. This clearly identifies the verb 'connect' and the resource 'Figma', and the scope is well-defined.

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 provides context for when to use this tool ('to connect to Figma') but does not differentiate it from siblings like figma_pairing, nor does it specify when not to use it or mention alternatives. The 'Safe Mode' qualifier hints at a cautionary usage, but exclusionary guidance is absent.

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