set_local_component_links

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 discloses the storage target and that nothing is published, but says nothing about whether existing links are replaced or merged, permission requirements, the 100-item limit, or what happens on failure — significant gaps for a mutation 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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the scope exclusion immediately following. Nothing is redundant with the tool name alone.

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 two-parameter, nested-object write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It should convey write semantics (overwrite vs append), required permissions or plugin-mode context, and what the 'links' payload represents, none of which are covered.

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 only 50%: nodeId is documented in the schema, but the required 'links' array and its 'name'/'source' fields have no description anywhere. The description adds no meaning about what a link name or source should contain, so the coverage gap is not compensated.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Save local component-to-code links') plus the storage location (Figma plugin data), and its negation 'Does not publish Code Connect' scopes it clearly against a publishing counterpart. It does not name the read sibling get_local_component_links, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

'Does not publish Code Connect' is a useful exclusion that tells the agent which adjacent operation this is not. However, there is no positive trigger condition (when to prefer this over publishing) and no named alternative such as get_local_component_links or a publish tool, leaving usage mostly inferable.

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