figma_render

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

The description states a mutation action ('Render ... into ...'), which aligns with readOnlyHint=false. However, it does not address the openWorldHint=true annotation, meaning side effects (e.g., overwriting existing content, triggering events) are not disclosed. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations already convey.

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 sentence, which is concise but prioritizes brevity over completeness. It lacks structural elements like bullet points or sections that could improve readability and clarity for a tool with multiple parameters.

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?

For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and 11 siblings, the description is insufficient. It does not explain prerequisites, effects on the design, or how to handle errors (e.g., invalid JSX), leaving the agent underinformed for correct invocation.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions for jsx, label, confirm, and fileKey. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, achieving the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 'Render JSX into the open Figma design' uses a specific verb ('Render') and resource ('JSX into ... Figma design'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like figma_run (execute scripts) or figma_reference (query references).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as figma_run or figma_connect. No preconditions (e.g., needing a valid connection or an open file) or exclusions (e.g., when JSX rendering is not appropriate) are mentioned.

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