join_channel

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses real behavior beyond the schema: the default channel value ('default'), per-server configuration via FIGMA_BRIDGE_CHANNEL, and that the plugin UI joins the selected channel. It does not cover error behavior for an unknown channel or whether selection persists across sessions, keeping it 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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then adds default/config detail and a sibling pointer. Efficient and well-ordered, with only mild verbosity in the configuration clause.

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 one-parameter state-selection tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, default, configuration source, and the related status tool. Missing only failure/error semantics for an invalid channel.

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% for the single required 'channel' param, so the description must compensate. It usefully defines what a channel is, that it defaults to 'default', and how it is configured via FIGMA_BRIDGE_CHANNEL, but gives no accepted-value format or validation rules.

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: selecting which connected Figma plugin channel subsequent commands target. It distinguishes itself from list_channels/figma_bridge_status by naming the latter as the tool for viewing channel-to-file mappings. Clear and specific, though it doesn't explicitly frame the sibling boundary in one sentence.

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?

Gives clear context for use: this sets the target for 'subsequent commands', and it explicitly routes the agent to figma_bridge_status for channel/file discovery. No explicit when-not conditions, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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