Move component to another file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that the source is deleted by default (destructive), that 'copy' preserves it, and that a cross-channel connection is required. It doesn't cover failure/partial-import behavior or auth, which keeps 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?

Three sentences, all front-loaded: the core action first, then prerequisites, then the source-identifier alternatives. No filler and every clause adds actionable information.

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 6-parameter cross-file operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, prerequisites, identifier options, and mode semantics adequately. Only the return/error behavior is left unaddressed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by explaining that componentId, componentKey, or componentName are alternative ways to identify the same source and reiterates the default mode, which helps the agent choose an identifier.

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 (import/move) and resource (component or component-set) across files, and its cross-channel scope makes it clearly distinct from same-file siblings like import_component_by_key or replace_all_instances.

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 the prerequisite that the target file must be open with the plugin connected on a different channel and points to figma_bridge_status / list_channels for verifying that. It also explains the copy-vs-move choice, though it doesn't explicitly state when a same-file alternative should be preferred.

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