What a Figma link points at

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

With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already provided, the description adds useful behavioral context: it handles one or more links, resolves them to nodes, and has no export side effect. This clarifies the operation beyond the bare annotation flags.

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?

A single sentence carries all needed information, opens with the action, and wastes no words. The exclusion clause 'without exporting anything' earns its place by preventing confusion with export tools.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations, the description is largely complete: it names the input, the transformation, and a key non-behavior. A small gap is that it does not describe the shape or granularity of the returned node information, and there is no output schema to fill that in.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by specifying the input must be 'one or more Figma links' and that resolution yields named nodes. This goes beyond the schema's minimal 'Figma links to resolve.'

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 identifies a specific verb ('Turns'), a concrete resource ('Figma links'), and the expected outcome ('into the nodes they name'). It also distinguishes itself from export-related siblings by explicitly saying 'without exporting anything.'

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 implies the tool is for resolving links to node identity, and the phrase 'without exporting anything' hints that export tasks belong elsewhere. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like figma_extract or figma_export_png.

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