figma_login

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing that it opens a non-remote-controlled browser, that the window self-closes, that headless work resumes afterward, and that wait_seconds blocks until login completes.

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 sentences with no filler. Purpose, trigger condition, user interaction, and headless continuation are front-loaded in a compact, readable form.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, UI side effect, and blocking semantics. The only noticeable gap is timeout/failure behavior, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It states that wait_seconds blocks until login completes, which adds semantic value beyond the schema's min/max, but it does not explain the default behavior when omitted or what happens if the timeout is reached.

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 names a specific operation and resource ('ensure ... logged into figma.com') and explains the trigger condition ('if not') and action. It is clearly distinct from all sibling tools, none of which handle authentication or login.

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?

It communicates the use case (before headless work that requires an authenticated account) and behavior ('if not, opens a normal browser window'). It does not name alternatives, but no sibling tool provides this function, so no exclusions are needed.

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