Post Figma Comment (unsupported)

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

It openly discloses that this is a stub and that the message parameter is ignored, adding context beyond the neutral annotations. It does not specify the exact runtime behavior (e.g., whether it throws an error or silently does nothing), but the stub nature is clearly communicated.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with 'Stub' to immediately signal unsupported status. It efficiently conveys the limitation without unnecessary words.

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 stub tool, the description is complete: it explains why the tool exists, the external dependency, and that no plugin equivalent is possible. No output schema is needed, and the minimal schema aligns with the stub nature.

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 schema already provides full coverage for the single parameter 'message' with an explanatory description that it is ignored. The tool description does not add additional parameter detail, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a stub for posting Figma comments, explicitly stating that the REST API is disabled and there is no plugin-based equivalent. It distinguishes itself from get_figma_comments by indicating that posting is unsupported while getting may be available.

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 states that posting comments requires the REST API which is disabled, making it clear that this tool should not be relied upon for creating comments. It explains that there is no plugin-based alternative, giving users context to avoid this tool, though it does not explicitly name an alternative within the plugin.

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