figma_prepare_design

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lists the major operations (fetch, normalize, render, download, validate, persist), which gives a transparent summary of the tool's behavior. However, it does not disclose details like caching semantics (e.g., that force_refresh bypasses a cache), potential side effects of persisting, or error behavior. The action list is useful but sparse on deeper behavioral context.

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 lists all major actions in a structured, front-loaded sequence. It is appropriately sized and free of filler. However, the list format is slightly dense and might benefit from a clarifying phrase about the tool's role as a preparation step, but it remains efficient.

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?

The description covers the core workflow but lacks context about its role in the broader tool set. An output schema exists, so return values are likely covered elsewhere. Given the absence of annotations and no mention of when to use it, the description is not fully complete for an agent trying to decide between preparation and inspection tools.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for all 4 parameters, each with detailed descriptions. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema already explains URL, node, image_scale, and force_refresh effectively.

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, multi-step verb phrase ('Fetch, normalize, render, download, validate, and persist') with an explicit resource ('one Figma design root'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like figma_list_frames or figma_inspect_design, which focus on reading/list only, while this tool is a comprehensive preparation pipeline.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is a prerequisite for figma_generate_unity_prefab, nor does it describe scenarios where inspect or list would be more appropriate. Sibling tool names give context, but the description itself offers no explicit usage direction.

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