Sync FigCraft Exports into Web Assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that only manifest-listed files are copied and that hashes/missing files/conflicts are recorded, but says nothing about overwrite semantics (the overwrite param exists in the schema, but its effect isn't described), permissions, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the positive behavior comes first and the scope exclusion is front-loaded at the end. Every clause earns its place.

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 file-writing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is only partly complete: it never explains overwrite behavior, what happens on conflict, or what the recorded results look like. The schema fills in defaults, but mutation semantics are left implicit.

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 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds mild value by tying the handoff manifest, the export directory, and the <publicDir>/figcraft destination together conceptually, but adds no format or default details beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (copy manifest-listed files from the FigCraft export dir to <publicDir>/figcraft) and adds a negative scope clause: 'Does not export from FigCraft itself,' which separates it from the sibling prepare_web_handoff. The only gap is that it doesn't name prepare_web_handoff as the prerequisite, though the schema field for handoff does.

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?

'Does not export from FigCraft itself' implies the agent should call the export/handoff step first, but neither the ordering nor the alternative tool is stated explicitly. There are no exclusions beyond that single clause and no prerequisites spelled out.

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