Join Channel

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

The description discloses that joining a channel establishes a live connection, which is a behavioral trait beyond the idempotent and open-world hints already provided in annotations. It adds useful context about the connection side effect without contradicting the 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that places the action first and states the purpose without any wasteful words or redundant information.

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 low-complexity tool with a single parameter, an output schema, and informative annotations, the description provides sufficient context about the tool's purpose and effect. It lacks explicit preconditions or examples, but the combination of schema and annotations fills that gap.

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 input schema already fully describes the single 'channel' parameter with a clear description, and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'Join' and identifies the resource 'plugin channel', with a clear outcome of establishing a live connection to the Figma document. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on node operations and styles.

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 a clear context for use: when a live connection to the Figma document via a plugin channel is needed. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but since no sibling tool handles channels, the usage context is unambiguous.

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