figma_create_mini_ds

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

Annotations set destructiveHint: true, and the description aligns by describing creation of many elements in one call. It adds behavioral context by listing what is created (colors, text styles, components) and notes that it works on a blank file. It could be more explicit about overwriting behavior, but given the blank file context, it is sufficient.

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, using 3 sentences to convey purpose, usage condition, parameters, and result. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description provides a result structure ({ success, dsName, ... }) and suggests subsequent use of figma_execute. It explains the tool's role in a workflow. Could mention prerequisites (blank file) explicitly, but it is implied from the usage guideline.

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 descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description reinforces defaults and meaning (e.g., primaryColor default, includeComponents effect) and adds result structure. While it adds some extra context, the schema already does adequate documentation, so score is baseline.

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 creates a minimal design system for an empty Figma file, listing exactly what it creates (12 color variables, 8 sizing variables, 3 text styles, and components). It is distinct from atomic siblings like figma_create_variable or figma_create_frame, making its macro-purpose unambiguous.

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 specifies usage context: when the user selects 'Mini DS' in a 'Blank File 4-option dialog'. It also mentions a follow-up with figma_execute. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives beyond one sibling.

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