figma_validate_ds_compliance

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: the recursion, the types of violations checked (hardcoded colors/fonts, missing text style bindings), and that it runs against the current DS enforcement profile. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and scope, second gives usage timing and parameter hint. No wasted 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 compliance validation tool with an output schema (present but not shown), the description covers purpose, usage context, and parameter. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100% with nodeId description. The description adds context: 'nodeId (required, typically the artboard root),' which aids correct parameter usage.

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 it recursively checks a node and children against DS enforcement profile, flagging specific violations (hardcoded colors/fonts, missing text style bindings). It distinguishes itself from siblings like figma_inspect or figma_list_ds by focusing on compliance validation.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use: 'during Phase 3/4 QA, especially at the 20-op build checkpoint, before generating the report.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools.

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