figma_to_drive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behaviors. It mentions automatic parsing of frame names but does not detail other behaviors such as authentication requirements (though credentialsPath is in schema), error handling, overwrite behavior, or what happens on success.

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 with two sentences that convey the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the primary action, though the language is informal and could be better structured.

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?

As a pipeline tool with no output schema, the description should provide more context on the overall process, return values, and potential side effects. It lacks completeness for effective agent decision-making.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameter descriptions are complete in the schema. The description adds marginal context by reiterating the frame name format and parsing logic, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 is a complete pipeline that exports frames from Figma and uploads to Google Drive, with automatic parsing of frame names. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools (export_figma_frames and upload_to_drive) which would handle each step separately.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this combined pipeline versus the individual sibling tools. It implies usage for the combined workflow but lacks guidance on prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or alternative scenarios.

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