figma_insert_component

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

Annotations are provided (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.). Beyond that, the description clarifies that it inserts a 'real library instance — not a recreation', which is a key behavioral trait. It does not mention any side effects on the library file or constraints like permissions, but the main behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by example uses and parameter guidance. Every sentence adds value.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and moderate annotations, the description covers usage, parameter selection, and behavioral nuance. It doesn't describe what the tool returns (likely nothing), but without an output schema this is acceptable. Overall it provides enough context 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?

Schema description coverage is 75% (6 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by clarifying the role of componentKey vs nodeId, stating preference ordering, and explaining that parentNodeId is optional. However, x and y parameters lack descriptions in both schema and text, leaving a minor gap.

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 starts with 'Insert a library component instance into a Figma frame', a specific verb+resource statement. It lists concrete examples (navigation bars, headers, etc.) and explicitly contrasts with 'not a recreation', clearly distinguishing from related siblings like figma_replace_component or figma_create_rectangle.

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 advises using componentKey over nodeId and mentions design system search results, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or direct to alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., figma_replace_component for swapping, figma_swap_main_component for main component changes). Guidance is implied but not thorough.

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