figma_changes

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

The description discloses the byPlugin tagging heuristic with its exact time window and states that such changes are hidden by default. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation and tells the agent that attribution is heuristic, not guaranteed.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose, the byPlugin heuristic, and the continuation protocol. The most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 simple polling tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: what is returned, the seq continuation contract, and how to include plugin changes. The exact shape of change entries is not specified, but the per-node summary and seq are sufficient guidance.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds meaningful usage semantics for since ('pass back the returned seq') and for includePlugin (plugin changes are hidden by default), raising it above the baseline.

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 exactly what the tool returns: file changes since a previous call, broken into node creations, deletions, and property changes with a per-node summary. The 'since a previous call' scope differentiates it from generic status or history tools even without naming a sibling.

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 gives a concrete usage pattern: pass back the returned seq as since, and explains that plugin-triggered changes are hidden by default so the tool shows human edits between calls. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended use case is clear.

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