figma_post_comment

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 and does not meet it. It says 'add' (a mutation), but never discloses that authentication is required via the personal_access_token parameter, what permissions the token needs, whether the comment notifies collaborators, or what the response contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the optional coordinate behavior is stated compactly. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing behavioral detail noted elsewhere.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does too little. It omits the auth token requirement, permission scope, and any indication of what a successful call returns (e.g., a comment ID or thread reference).

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 40% (x and y are documented; message, file_key and personal_access_token are not). The description adds meaning for the coordinate pair by framing x/y as an optional pinning mechanism, but it leaves the authentication parameter completely unexplained — a significant gap for a tool that will fail without it.

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 verb (add) and resource (comment) scoped to a Figma file, plus the optional pinning behavior. An agent can distinguish this from figma_get_comments, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the write counterpart to the reading tools like figma_get_comments. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as file access level, and no exclusions.

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