figma_sync

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It discloses that sync pulls specific data but omits behavioral traits such as whether listing is a read-only operation, if sync is destructive, authentication needs, or rate limits. Incomplete transparency for a tool with no 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Manage Figma connector integrations') and then details actions. Every word adds value with no fluff.

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 two actions, 3 parameters, and no output schema, the description covers the primary behaviors but does not hint at return values for sync, error conditions, or edge cases. It describes what list shows but not the format. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 each parameter described. The description adds value by explaining the action enum values ('list: show all connected Figma files and their sync status; sync: trigger a full sync...'), which goes beyond the schema descriptions. Minimal additional context for workspaceId and integrationId but overall helpful.

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 manages Figma connector integrations, listing connected files or triggering a sync to pull design tokens, components, and page structure. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools (no other Figma-specific tool).

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 usage (list or sync Figma connections) and is evident from the tool name and description. However, it does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or provide exclusions. Clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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