Conduit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool subscribes or unsubscribes to events and describes return values, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, whether subscriptions persist, how events are delivered (e.g., webhooks), or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the purpose and return values. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently covers the core functionality. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating subscription and unsubscribe details, but overall, it's appropriately sized for its content.

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 (managing event subscriptions with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like how subscriptions work, error cases, or integration with other tools. While it mentions return values, it doesn't provide a full context for effective use, making it inadequate for a mutation tool in this environment.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'eventType' with examples but doesn't explain 'filter', 'subscribe', or 'subscriptionId' parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond what's implied by the tool name, failing to clarify parameter roles or usage, which is insufficient given the low 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 tool's purpose: 'Subscribe or unsubscribe to a Figma event (e.g., selection_change, document_change).' It specifies the verb (subscribe/unsubscribe) and resource (Figma event) with examples, making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, which are mostly about creating, modifying, or fetching design elements rather than event management, so a distinction isn't critical here.

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. It mentions event types like 'selection_change' and 'document_change' but doesn't explain their contexts, prerequisites, or when to choose subscription over other methods. There's no mention of sibling tools or any usage constraints, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios.

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