post_comment

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait: the FIGMA_TOKEN auth requirement and the fact that this goes through the REST API. It does not disclose whether the comment is created immediately, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains, leaving the mutation profile partially opaque.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler, front-loading the action and then layering the auth prerequisite and the two parameter semantics in priority order.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the auth prerequisite, and the anchoring/positioning semantics of the nested object. It is largely sufficient, though it omits any note on return behavior or access requirements.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it explains the two non-obvious parameters: nodeId anchors the comment to a node, and clientMeta {x,y[,nodeId]} positions it on the canvas (with the bracket notation signaling the nested nodeId is optional). fileKey and message are self-evident from their names, so only minor value is left on the table.

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 ('Create a comment on a Figma file') and specifies the transport ('via the REST API'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling list_comments or delete_comment, so the agent gets no routing help from the text itself.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description notes the FIGMA_TOKEN prerequisite and the REST transport, which tells the agent when the tool is viable. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to delete_comment or list_comments.

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