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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a non-obvious side effect: macOS triggers a Keychain prompt. It also warns that a system prompt may appear, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the tool's basic function.

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 sentences with no filler. The first states the action; the second delivers the critical warning and prerequisite. Every word earns its place and the most important caveat is highlighted with 'IMPORTANT'.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is extracted, where from, and the user-facing side effect and prerequisite. No additional context is needed for an agent to safely invoke it.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter schema to elaborate on. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description instead clarifies preconditions, which is appropriate given there is nothing else to document.

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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') with a clear resource ('Figma session cookies from Chrome'). It unambiguously distinguishes this tool from sibling setup tools like status, select_account, and save_pat.

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?

It provides clear usage instructions: confirm the user is logged into figma.com in Chrome and warn about a system prompt. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the given precondition is directly actionable and sufficient for this setup context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does disclose that the action is to validate and save the token and that completing setup activates tools, but it omits details such as error handling on invalid tokens, side effects like overwriting existing tokens, or any persistence behavior. This is basic transparency but not rich.

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 two sentences with no fluff: the first states the primary action, the second conveys the intended effect. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the main verb.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential behavior: what it does (validates and saves) and why it matters (completes setup and activates tools). It could be more explicit about side effects or idempotency, but for a low-complexity tool this is reasonably 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 description coverage is 100% (the single parameter is described as 'Figma Personal Access Token (starts with figd_)'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds context about validating and saving but does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. No gap to compensate for.

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 action (validate and save) and the resource (Figma Personal Access Token), and distinguishes it from siblings by noting it 'completes setup and activates all tools'. This is specific and unambiguous, leaving no doubt about the tool's core function.

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?

Usage is implied through the phrase 'Completes setup and activates all tools', suggesting it is the final step in the setup flow, but no explicit guidance is given on when to use it versus alternatives like setup_extract_cookies or setup_select_account. There is no mention of when not to use it or preconditions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It hints at session validation but doesn't specify what 'validate' means, failure modes, or side effects. It's adequate for a simple setup step but lacks detail on what gets modified or checked.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It's concise and includes the key usage hint without extra fluff. Slightly more detail on validation could help, but it's appropriately sized.

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 single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers core usage. However, it doesn't mention expected outcomes, error handling, or what happens if the session is invalid, leaving some gaps for a tool that validates something.

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 a clear description for account_index. The description adds little beyond the schema, but since the schema is already explicit and the tool has only one parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 selects a Figma account and validates the session, with a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings by naming setup_extract_cookies as a prerequisite, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other setup tools.

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 instruction to call after setup_extract_cookies provides clear sequencing context, implying this tool depends on prior cookie extraction. It doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the dependency guidance is useful for correct invocation.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only status check but does not explicitly confirm that it makes no changes, nor does it describe what happens if authentication is missing or what the output structure is. While the name and context suggest safety, the description itself lacks explicit behavioral details.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides a clear usage directive. Every word earns its place.

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 low complexity (0 params, no output schema) and clear sibling tools, the description adequately explains what the tool does and when to use it. However, it could have elaborated on the expected output or the nature of the status check, but for a simple tool this is sufficient.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema accurately reflects this (100% coverage). The description does not need to add parameter details. Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'figmanage authentication status', and adds the secondary purpose of 'get setup instructions'. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like setup_extract_cookies and setup_select_account, which handle different aspects of the setup process.

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 explicitly provides a usage rule: 'Always call this before using any other tool.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool and establishes a clear ordering prerequisite, going beyond implied guidance.

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