figma_pairing

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, so the tool's mutation risk is known. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it warns that rotate:true invalidates the old key and requires a reconnect. This is valuable extra transparency even though annotations cover the destructive hint. No annotation 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?

Two clear, front-loaded sentences with zero wasted words. The core action and the optional parameter behavior are stated succinctly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description fully covers what the agent needs: show the key and optionally rotate it with the post-action requirement. No gaps remain.

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% and the one boolean parameter is well described in the schema. The description also adds value by explaining that rotate:true will invalidate the old key and requires a subsequent figma_connect call, which is not in the schema. This extra guidance justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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's purpose: showing the Figma plugin access key to paste into the Figma Bridge plugin. It also explicitly calls out the rotate parameter behavior. Among siblings like figma_connect, figma_run, and figma_status, this is the only tool for managing the pairing access key, so it is well differentiated.

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 explains when to use the tool (to show the key) and when to use rotate:true (to generate a fresh key requiring reconnect). It instructs to run figma_connect after rotation. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool or name alternative sibling tools for other pairing-related tasks, losing a point for not fully covering usage boundaries.

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