Import design tokens

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the mutation side effects (creates/updates a collection, creates a Default mode, sets values) and the value-to-variable-type mapping. It omits overwrite/idempotency semantics for existing variables and any permission or error behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action before format details and type mapping. Every sentence carries information; only the final mapping clause is slightly crammed, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a 4-param mutation tool with deeply nested input, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers format, side effects, and type mapping adequately. It leaves return behavior and overwrite semantics unstated, which are the remaining gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it defines the accepted 'tokens' shape, the default collection name ('Design Tokens') mapping to collectionName, the Default mode relating to modeName, and 'optionally paint styles' matching createStyles. It adds real meaning beyond the bare typed schema.

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 and resource ('Import a W3C-style Design Tokens JSON object into Figma variables') and names the secondary effect (paint styles). It is easily distinguished from siblings like import_variable_by_key (single key) and export_tokens (the inverse direction). No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies the scenario (bulk-importing a W3C token file) but never states when to prefer it over alternatives such as create_variable_collection + create_variable + set_variable_values, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable from the purpose, not spelled out.

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