generate_react_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the conversion behaviors (Flexbox, fills, typography, strokes, border radius) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what Figma token scopes are required, or what the return value looks like. This is a moderate disclosure but lacks important context.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and lists the key conversion mappings, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify the return format. It explains the conversion process but omits what the agent will receive (e.g., code string, file), potential error scenarios, and any prerequisites beyond the parameters. Sibling tool differentiation is also not addressed.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'Figma node' which maps to nodeId, but it does not add extra detail about parameter formats, constraints, or relationships beyond the schema's short descriptions.

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 fetches a Figma node and converts it into a production React component, listing specific conversion mappings (Auto Layout → Flexbox, fills, typography, strokes, border radius). This specific verb+resource+output structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_design_tokens and generate_mfe_module.

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 implies usage when a Figma node needs to be turned into a React component, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with the sibling tools. Without explicit exclusions or alternative references, the agent must rely on the tool name and description alone.

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