figma_apply_transformations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that replaced originals are hidden and renamed rather than deleted, and that the operation is a single undo step. Both facts materially affect whether an agent should call it without confirmation.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying a distinct load: source, approval gate, subsetting rule, mutation behavior, undo scope. The hard constraint (approved) is front-loaded ahead of the softer scoping details.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the critical ground: approval gating, non-destructive replacement, undo semantics, and subsetting. It omits what the call returns and how the three filter parameters (ids/ops/groups/excludeGroups) compose, which is the remaining 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?

Schema description coverage is 50% and the description adds real value for two of six params: it explains that ids selects a subset with default-all semantics, and that approved is an approval gate. It says nothing about how ops, groups, and excludeGroups interact or whether they are combinable, so half the surface remains undocumented.

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 ('Apply') and the resource ('transformations from figma_analyze_design'), which pins the operation to a known upstream artifact. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as figma_execute_plan or figma_preview_plan, leaving the agent to infer which stage of the pipeline this belongs to.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition (approved=true, only settable after explicit user approval) and a scoping rule ('Pass ids to apply a subset (default all)'). It stops short of saying when to prefer this over figma_preview_plan or figma_execute_plan, so alternative-selection is left implicit.

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