figma_post_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions the action and pinning, omitting authentication requirements, error behavior, rate limits, or return format. The agent gets minimal behavioral insight.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's core purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the optional feature appended efficiently.

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 tool's simplicity (5 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic functionality but lacks details on authentication sources, error scenarios, and response shape. It is minimally adequate for a straightforward create operation.

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 description coverage is only 40% (x and y have descriptions). The description does not add meaning to the three required parameters (personal_access_token, file_key, message) beyond their names. It references pinning coordinates but does not compensate for the uncovered parameters.

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's action ('Add a comment'), the resource ('to a Figma file'), and an optional feature ('pinned to canvas coordinates'). It distinguishes this creation tool from sibling tools like figma_get_comments, which are for reading.

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 implies the tool is for posting comments but does not explicitly contrast with read operations (e.g., figma_get_comments) or provide context on when to use it over alternatives. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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