figma_connect

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

Annotations are present: readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it may 'recover', 'create its key', or 'show setup', suggesting a setup/recovery operation with possible side effects (creating a key). While it doesn't conflict with annotations, it doesn't clearly describe side effects or what 'connect Safe Mode' entails; openWorldHint=true is consistent but vague. No contradiction.

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 short and front-loaded with the main verb. However, the semicolon list of three actions is somewhat compressed and could be more explicit, but it is not bloated.

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 that this is an action-y tool with zero parameters, the description is too vague about what 'Connect Safe Mode' actually does, what the outcomes are, and how it differs from figma_pairing/figma_status. An agent would not know what to expect after calling it. The output schema is missing, which increases the need for behavioral context.

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, so the description carries no parameter burden. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description's ambiguity about actions is not necessarily about parameters, so this score is fair.

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 verb ('Connect') and resource ('Safe Mode'), and mentions three possible actions: recover the plugin, create its key, or show setup. However, it is ambiguous what 'connect safe mode' actually means and which of these actions will occur on invocation. It distinguishes a bit from siblings like figma_pairing and figma_status, but not clearly enough.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like figma_pairing or figma_status. The description implies it is for a setup/recovery scenario, but it doesn't state conditions, prerequisites, or when to prefer another sibling.

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