figma_execute

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint: true. The description extensively discloses behavioral traits: static analysis for design-system violations (with SEVERE warnings promoted), gotchas (FILL/ABSOLUTE before appendChild, sync API usage, loadFontAsync), and post-execute scanning for unbound properties that can invalidate execution. This far exceeds the 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 relatively long but well-structured with version markers (v1.8.1+, v1.9.6+), bullet-like lists (gotchas), and clear separation of concerns (execution, static analysis, post-execute scan). A few sentences could be trimmed (e.g., Turkish text for post-execute scan) but overall efficient for the complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (code execution, scanning, design-system checks), the description is remarkably complete. It covers version-specific behaviors, error handling (SEVERE warnings, POST_EXECUTE_SCAN_BLOCKING), and practical gotchas. No output schema exists, but the description explains expected response additions (_designSystemViolations, _postExecuteScanBlocking, etc.).

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 50% (2/4 params have descriptions: figmaUrl and fileKey). The description adds valuable context for code (main script), timeout (default 15000ms), and the interplay between fileKey and figmaUrl. It compensates for missing schema descriptions by explaining usage.

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 runs JavaScript in Figma plugin context with full API access, using fileKey or figmaUrl to target files. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., figma_create_frame, figma_get_variables) by its execution nature and unique side-effects like design-system violation detection.

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 explicit context: when to use (run JS), how to target (fileKey/figmaUrl), and key behaviors (static analysis, post-execute scan). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare it directly to alternatives like figma_plugin_diagnostics or figma_scan_ds_compliance, which might overlap.

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