Upload a .fig file

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden but only mentions 'through the import menu,' hinting at UI automation. It does not disclose side effects, file size limits, whether uploads overwrite existing files, or any required authentication state.

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 core purpose without redundant words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description leaves gaps: no output/return behavior is mentioned, 'visible' is unclear, and no guidance is given for obtaining the required projectId. The low schema coverage amplifies these omissions, making it only minimally complete.

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 33% (only 'path' is described), and the description adds minimal clarification: 'from disk' explains path and 'into a project' explains projectId. However, the 'visible' parameter is entirely unexplained, and projectId lacks a description in both schema and description.

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 ('Push a Figma .fig file') and the resource ('from disk into a project'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pull_files or list_files.

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 usage (uploading .fig files to projects) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention prerequisites. It does not note that projectId could come from list_projects.

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