Confirm a previewed export plan

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), the description adds that unlocking is restricted to the exact digest and that the tool validates Figma version consistency. This reveals scoping and validation behavior that annotations alone do not convey.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the main effect ('Unlocks only the exact digest') and then appends the two key constraints. There is no filler, and every clause 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 an output schema present, the description correctly avoids explaining return values. It conveys the operation's purpose, preconditions, and rejection behavior, though it leaves the exact semantics of confirmation_summary to inference. Overall, enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly in a normal workflow.

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 0%, but the description does not explain plan_id, the meaning of the digest beyond the schema regex, or what confirmation_summary must contain. The only implicit hint is that 'digest' appears in the description; this is not enough compensation for the lack of coverage.

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 verb 'Unlocks' plus the resource 'the exact digest' names a precise action, and the title 'Confirm a previewed export plan' places it between preview_export_plan and execute_export_plan in the workflow. It clearly distinguishes this approval step from its siblings without ambiguity.

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 states the exact precondition ('after explicit user approval') and the exclusions ('rejects unresolved clarifications and changed Figma versions'). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the context makes the expected usage position clear.

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