setup_save_pat

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.