figma_select_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a stateful effect (subsequent operations target the chosen file) but never states whether the selection persists across calls, applies per-session, or what happens with an invalid/stale connectionId — meaningful gaps for a state-setting tool.

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 short sentences with zero filler: the condition first, then the parameter source. Every sentence earns its place and the most actionable detail (where to get the id) is not buried.

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 selector with no output schema, the description covers what it does, the triggering condition, and the parameter's origin. What's missing — persistence of the selection and error behavior for unknown ids — is minor but not negligible for a state-changing tool with no annotations to lean on.

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 bare string 'connectionId' would be opaque; the description compensates by telling the agent exactly where the value comes from (figma_status). It still lacks any format/example or validity notes, keeping it below a 5.

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 action: choose which Figma file to operate on when several are connected, and names connectionId as the selector. It is distinguishable from siblings like figma_status (which produces the id) and use_figma (which presumably consumes it), though the verb 'select' is only implied by 'specify which one to operate on' rather than stated as a tool name verb.

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 an explicit trigger condition: 'when multiple Figma files are connected simultaneously', and routes the agent to figma_status to obtain the required id. It does not say what to do when only one file is connected (skip this tool?) or whether selection must precede other calls, so the exclusions are incomplete.

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