Conduit

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the return format ('Array of objects with type: text and text field'), which isn't covered in annotations. Annotations already cover idempotency, destructiveness, and edge cases, but the description usefully discloses output structure. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences: one stating the core purpose and another specifying the return format. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the main functionality, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutating operations with multiple parameter combinations) and rich annotations covering idempotency, edge cases, and examples, the description is reasonably complete. It adds output format details, which is helpful since there's no output schema. However, it could better explain the create/update/delete logic interplay.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents both parameters ('ids' and 'variables') and their complex structures. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for any gaps.

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 'creates, updates, or deletes one or more Figma Variables (design tokens)', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_text_style' or 'set_variant' that also modify design elements, leaving room for confusion about when to use this specific variable tool versus other setters.

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. While annotations mention it depends on which parameters are provided, the description itself lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from parameter combinations alone.

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