extract_figma_styles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that a Personal Access Token is required, that extraction goes through a remote REST API, and that tokens are normalized and written into the active token store (a mutating side effect). It still omits what happens to pre-existing tokens when merge_strategy is left at its default and any rate-limit/error behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The final auth sentence partially duplicates the figma_pat schema description, which keeps it just short of ideal.

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?

Covers source, destination, auth, and normalization for a 5-parameter tool with no annotations. The main gap is that no output schema exists and the description never indicates what the call returns or how success/failure is reported.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema, including the PAT, the namespace prefix, and the merge_strategy enum. The description adds nothing beyond 'Requires a Figma Personal Access Token', which the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (extract) and resource (design tokens: colors, typography, effects), names the source (Figma REST API) and the destination (active token store). This clearly separates it from generic token siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with import_design_tokens.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and the obviously related sibling import_design_tokens is never referenced. The agent must infer that this tool is the Figma-specific path and that other importers cover other sources.

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