Compile the design into a Figma-editable draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the REST API cannot create designs and that the plugin is needed for editable drafts. However, it omits important behavioral details such as auth requirements (FIGMA_TOKEN is mentioned but not clarified as required), side effects (e.g., does it modify the Figma file?), and output location (local path or URL?).

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, efficiently front-loaded with the purpose and then detailing outputs and constraints. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should explain return values. It names the artifacts but does not specify the tool's response format (e.g., paths, URLs). It also lacks details on error handling or token requirements for handoff. Despite these gaps, it covers the core outputs and constraints reasonably.

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 low (33%), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by linking mode enum values to output types (wireframes, plugin, handoff) and mentioning the token context. But it does not describe project_dir or provide constraints for figma_file_key beyond the schema's description. The compensation is partial.

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 that the tool compiles a screen plan into three specific design artifacts: SVG wireframes, a Figma plugin, and an optional REST handoff comment. The verb 'compile' and resource 'design artifacts' are specific, and the outputs are distinct from sibling tools, which focus on compliance, media, and spatial generation.

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 guidance on when to use each mode (wireframes, plugin, handoff) and explicitly notes that the REST API cannot create designs, so the plugin is the editable-draft path. It also implies that figma_file_key is needed for handoff mode. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though no close siblings exist.

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