figma_clone_screen_to_device

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

The description warns that cloning copies existing mistakes (hardcoded rectangles, missing token bindings, non-responsive layouts), adding behavioral insight beyond the annotations (destructiveHint: true). No contradiction with annotations.

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 informative but somewhat lengthy. However, it is well-structured with a warning prefix, bullet-point-like conditions, and clear sections. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and only destructiveHint annotation, the description covers the critical use case, exclusions, and important behavioral notes. It could mention return behavior but is adequate for selection.

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% with good parameter descriptions. The tool description adds value by listing device presets and explaining targetDevice format, slightly improving clarity 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 explicitly states the narrow use case: 'Device migration ONLY' to clone a Figma screen to a target device dimension, preserving library instances, bound variables, and auto-layout. It clearly distinguishes from figma_execute for creating alternatives, variations, or new designs.

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?

Provides explicit conditions: 'USE ONLY WHEN: same design system + same layout structure + only screen size changes.' Specifies when NOT to use and directs to figma_execute + Step 5 for other cases, including specific keywords like 'alternatif', 'varyasyon', etc.

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