figma_post_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'add a comment' and 'optionally pinned', but does not mention side effects (e.g., creating new or appending), required permissions, rate limits, or response format. This is insufficient 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and optional feature. However, it could be restructured to include more context without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, and 5 parameters including one for authentication, the description is incomplete. It does not address error states, authentication requirements, or how to obtain file_key, which an agent needs for correct invocation.

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 description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema: it hints at x and y for 'pinned to canvas coordinates', but does not explain personal_access_token, file_key, or message. With schema coverage at 40%, additional clarification was needed and is missing.

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 action (Add a comment) and resource (Figma file) with an optional feature of pinning to canvas coordinates. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'figma_get_comments' which reads comments, but lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., figma_get_comments) or prerequisites (e.g., needing file_key and token). The description does not mention any exclusions or context for appropriate usage.

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