sync_figma

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals a network/auth prerequisite (FIGMA_TOKEN) and warns that existing references with the same name are overwritten—a key destructive side-effect. It doesn't cover return format or rate limits, but the critical behaviors are disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every clause carries meaningful detail: the download, the token requirement, naming behavior, and overwrite side-effect. No filler or repetition.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action, prerequisite, and overwrite behavior. However, it omits what happens when 'frame' is null (presumably all frames) and how 'file_key' maps to the Figma file, which is needed for correct invocation.

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 needed to compensate by explaining 'frame' and 'file_key'. It clarifies that frame names become reference names, but it does not explain that 'frame' is an optional filter or what 'file_key' identifies. This leaves a significant gap for an agent trying to set parameters correctly.

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 states a specific action ('Download'), a clear resource ('Figma frames'), and a destination ('references directory'), making the tool's function immediately obvious. It also differentiates from siblings like capture or update_reference by indicating a Figma source, and the overwrite note adds specificity.

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 a clear context for use—syncing Figma frames into the references directory—and notes the FIGMA_TOKEN prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like capture or update_reference, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

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