Convert a Figma frame to code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that output is written to a cache dir with named files, that Figma responses are cached so re-runs are offline and free, and that refresh=true bypasses that cache. The notable gaps are auth requirements (a Figma token is surely needed) and error/failure behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and output set, then flags, then caching, then the follow-up tool — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. It is on the long side for a description, though every clause conveys operative information.

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 an eight-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is produced and where, the caching model, and the verification follow-up, which is most of what an agent needs. Only prerequisite credentials and failure modes are missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the parameter docs are already detailed, so the baseline is 3. The prose reinforces react/next/refresh semantics but adds little the schema does not already state, and the interaction between tailwind and the other flags is left to the schema.

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?

"Fetch a Figma frame and deterministically convert it to self-contained HTML (no LLM)" gives a specific verb, resource, output format, and even the execution model. It then enumerates the exact artifacts written (generated.html, reference.png, ir.json, assets.json) and the return value, so the tool is unmistakable against figma_verify and figma_inspect.

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 explicitly routes the agent: react=true for a component, next=true for a runnable App Router project, and "Follow with figma_verify to see how close the render is." That is real when-to-use guidance plus a named follow-up sibling. It never says when to prefer figma_inspect instead, so the exclusion set is incomplete.

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