Connect Figma design tokens

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

The description adds context by mentioning 'access-token safety notes' and the scaffold components. However, it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or prerequisites beyond what annotations already indicate (readOnly=false, destructive=false). With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main verb and resource. It lists many components without excess verbosity or repetition, making it efficient.

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?

With 10 optional parameters, no output schema, and minimal parameter descriptions, the description offers only a high-level overview. It does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters interrelate, or behavioral details, making it insufficient for correct invocation in varied contexts.

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 only 20% (just name and parent_path). The description lists scaffold components like 'token rows' and 'adapter source' but does not map them to specific parameters (token_count, component_count, adapter_url, etc.). It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameter meanings unclear.

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 it creates a 'Figma design-token scaffold' with specific components, which is a distinct resource. However, the tool title says 'Connect' while the description says 'Create', creating minor ambiguity about the primary action.

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 through its name and content, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling 'connect_*' and 'create_*' tools, but no when/when-not guidance or exclusions are provided.

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