tidy_target

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool mutates state (pins/unpins), that calling with no arguments is a read operation, and that absence of a target causes failure with a list rather than guessing. This is a good disclosure of edge-case behavior and safety concerns (avoiding writing to wrong file). The description doesn't mention persistence or scope (e.g., session vs persistent), but that's minor. No contradiction with annotations since none exist.

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 concise and front-loaded: the primary action ('Pin every subsequent command') is first, then accepted inputs, then edge-case behaviors. Every sentence earns its place—no filler or repetition. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two optional parameters.

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?

The tool is simple (0 required params, no output schema, no nested objects), yet the description covers all necessary behavioral aspects: how to set, view, clear, and the failure mode when ambiguous. It even explains a design rationale (avoid guessing). Given the low complexity, this is complete. An agent has enough info to call it correctly in all scenarios.

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%, with both parameters documented. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the exact matching behavior ('Names match exactly first, then case-insensitively') and the effect of clear: true. It also clarifies that file can be a name or key, which the schema doesn't explicitly state. Since the schema already covers basics, the description enriches semantics meaningfully.

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 the tool pins subsequent commands to a connected Figma file, accepts a file name or key, and lists specific behaviors like calling with no arguments to see the current target or clear: true to unpin. This distinguishes it from siblings like tidy_status or tidy_context which likely query state rather than set a target.

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 explicitly explains when to use the tool (to set or view the target), and provides a critical usage note: if multiple files are connected and no target is set, commands fail with a list of files rather than guessing. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context signals for siblings suggest it's the only pinning tool. A slight gap is not listing alternatives when the user wants a different operation like checking status, but that is implied by sibling names.

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