figma_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that validation checks a specific list of design-system properties (fonts, typography roles, token colors, viewport, component dimensions, etc.) and that the tool does not fix errors itself—users/agents must fix and re-run. It does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or describe the exact output format, but the workflow strongly implies it returns errors.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and purpose. The first sentence identifies the tool's job, the second lists concrete checks and the expected workflow. No wasted words or redundant restatements of schema fields.

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?

Moderate complexity (4 optional params, no output schema, no annotations) and the description covers the core purpose, checks, and usage context. It could be more explicit about the return value/error format and whether any side effects occur, but for a validation tool this is reasonably complete for an agent to select and invoke it.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with clear parameter descriptions for nodeId, recipe, nodeName, and sessionId. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond mentioning 'recipe-specific padding,' which slightly elaborates the recipe parameter. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 description starts with a specific verb ('Validate') and a clear resource ('a generated Figma frame against the configured design-system bundle'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like figma_read, figma_write, and figma_status by focusing on design-system compliance validation, not reading/writing/status.

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 provides clear usage context: use after a frame is generated and before handing the design to the user, with an explicit 'fix every error and re-run' workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the placement (post-generation, pre-handoff) makes the intended when-to-use fairly clear.

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