extract_icons_from_figma

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it uses the Figma REST API directly, handles deep/nested nodes and instances, checks the existing icon folder, and skips duplicates. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but it covers the main behavioral traits.

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 three sentences with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: purpose, behavior/method, and parameter-naming caveat. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 moderately complex tool, the description covers purpose, network method, nested-node handling, duplicate behavior, and a parameter caveat. It does not specify auth requirements or output details, but the input schema fully documents the four parameters, making the description reasonably complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explicitly warning that the parameter name is figma_url and not figma_node_url, which helps avoid a common invocation error.

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 is explicit: 'Extract all SVG icons from a Figma node URL and save new ones as TSX components.' It names the specific resource (Figma node URL), the action, and the output format, and the mention of using the Figma REST API clearly differentiates it from sibling svg_to_icon.

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 provides clear context for using the tool: extract from Figma node URLs, write TSX files, and handle duplicates. It also warns that the parameter must be figma_url, not figma_node_url. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling tool as an alternative or state when not to use it.

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