figma_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable insight about text-based node-id matching causing potential false positives and notes the optional REST dependency for includeVersions. This goes beyond the annotations to explain real-world quirks.

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 concise with three clear sentences: first explaining the tool's purpose, second describing filtering and merge capability, and third noting a behavioral quirk. Every sentence adds distinct value without redundancy.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (8 parameters, no required ones, nested schema, no output schema), the description is well-rounded. It explains the source (local audit log), filtering, optional git merge, and caveats. The diff parameter's behavior is sufficiently described in the schema and description together. No output schema exists, but the description implies the output format can be controlled via the format parameter, which is adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters well. The description adds value by clarifying the diff sub-object's references (e.g., 'live', 'latest', 'previous', index, Figma version id) and the behavior of nodeId filtering. It does not repeat schema details, but enriches them with usage context.

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 it retrieves local change history of Figma sessions from an audit log, specifying filtering by nodeId and optional merging with git history. It distinguishes itself from siblings by its focus on local history rather than rendering, running, or inspection tools.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (e.g., to see everything touching a node, or for a combined design+code changelog) and includes a notable caveat about text-based node-id matching. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool vs. alternatives like figma_reference or figma_inspect for different purposes.

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