figma_analyze_design

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states 'NON-destructive', 'Nothing is changed', and discloses the return shape ('analysisId + grouped summary'). It doesn't cover permissions, scope limits, or how the analysisId is later consumed, so it's strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loads the action and packs the transformation mapping into a scannable arrow list, with the safety guarantee and return value trailing. The leading 'Mode B.' is dead weight and the sentence is dense, but overall it is efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the return value and enumerating the analysis categories. Safety is explicit. It leaves the relationship between analysisId and downstream apply/execute tools unstated, which is the main residual gap for this multi-step workflow.

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 the schema already documents mode (with a detailed enum), target, and verbose. The description only echoes target ('selected frame (or node id)') and adds no format or default nuance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (inspect selected frame/node, compare to Design System, propose transformations) and enumerates concrete transformation types. An agent can distinguish it from apply/execute siblings because it explicitly only proposes. The cryptic 'Mode B.' prefix adds no clarity and the tool isn't contrasted with named siblings.

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?

'Inspect the selected frame (or node id)' and 'propose NON-destructive transformations' imply this is the analysis step before applying changes, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance is given. Alternatives like figma_apply_transformations, figma_preview_plan, or figma_scan_design_system are never named, leaving the agent to infer the correct routing.

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