configure_figma_stories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions configuration actions but doesn't specify whether this creates persistent settings, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens on success/failure. The phrase 'Configure' implies mutation but lacks details about scope and impact.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and a key implementation detail. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 configuration tool with 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'configuration' entails (persistent storage? session-only?), success indicators, error conditions, or relationship to other tools. The absence of output schema increases the need for behavioral context that's 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%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning environment variable alternatives for two parameters but not explaining configuration persistence, validation, or interaction between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema coverage.

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 action ('Configure') and target ('Figma Stories plugin') with specific configuration areas ('API tokens and AI settings'), making the purpose evident. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'init_bugtracker' or 'get_config_status', but the specificity of 'Figma Stories plugin' provides reasonable distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'init_bugtracker' or 'get_config_status'. It mentions setting environment variables as alternatives for some parameters, but offers no context about prerequisites, timing, or tool selection criteria.

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