generate-figma-component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that Vue code is generated; it does not mention side effects, output format, dependencies, or whether a Figma mapping is required beforehand.

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 with no filler and the action verb is front-loaded. It is concise and readable, though slightly under-specified; 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves return format, behavior, and invocation context unclear. For a tool with three parameters and thirteen siblings, this one-liner is not sufficient for reliable selection and correct use.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema; 'with specific properties' loosely corresponds to the properties parameter but does not clarify how figmaComponentName, properties, and instanceName interrelate.

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 ('Generate') and a clear resource ('Vue code for a single Figma component'), so the core action is understandable. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like generate-code or convert-figma-to-vue, leaving potential ambiguity about which tool to choose.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus nearby alternatives such as generate-code, get-component, or convert-figma-to-vue. The description gives no use-case context, no exclusions, and no selection criteria.

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