Connect Figma design tokens

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

The annotations already indicate the tool is a write operation with potential external side effects (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description only lists scaffold contents and does not disclose operational behavior such as how it interacts with Figma, whether it requires authentication, or what gets modified outside the scaffold. It adds minimal behavioral insight beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is a single, understandable sentence that leads with the action and resource. It lists key output elements without excess verbiage, though it is slightly dense with listing.

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?

The description gives a reasonable overview of what the tool creates, but for a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, it lacks context about the target environment (TouchDesigner), prerequisites, and how parameters affect the scaffold. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

With only 20% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameters, but it does not. The listed scaffold components vaguely correspond to parameters like token_count and token_format, but no parameter is explicitly tied to the scaffold elements, leaving most of the 10 parameters unexplained.

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 clearly states the tool creates a Figma design-token scaffold and enumerates the specific components included (token rows, component-review rows, style preview metadata, adapter source, access-token safety notes). This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools by naming the exact resource and action.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The intended use can be inferred from the resource name, but the text does not help the agent decide between this and other connect/create scaffolding tools.

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