figma_execute_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses that execution is a single undo step, that failure triggers a full rollback, that the result is automatically verified against the plan, and that approved=true is required when writing into an existing node. It stops short of describing permissions, connection state, or what a failed verification returns, but the mutation/risk profile is unusually well covered.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then rollback/verification guarantees, then the conditional requirement. Every sentence adds distinct information with no repetition.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key risk surface (undo scope, rollback, auto-verification, approval gate). Gaps remain around how planId is obtained and what is returned on success vs. verification failure, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the conditional meaning of 'approved' (required when the plan writes into an existing node), which the bare boolean schema does not convey, and planId is implied to come from a prior preview. Neither parameter's format or provenance is fully specified, so it adds real but partial value.

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 states a specific verb+resource combination ('Execute a previously previewed plan in Figma') and enumerates the artifact types it produces (native frames, Auto Layout, component instances, variables, styles). The phrase 'previously previewed plan' explicitly ties it to the figma_preview_plan sibling, so an agent can distinguish it from figma_edit or figma_apply_transformations without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'previously previewed plan' tells the agent this must follow a preview step, and the approved=true requirement gives one concrete prerequisite. However, no sibling is named as an alternative (figma_edit, figma_apply_transformations) and there is no explicit when-not guidance, so the agent must infer the routing.

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