figma_verify

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the diagnostic scope (the five mismatch categories), which is genuine value, but says nothing about whether the operation is read-only/non-destructive, whether it mutates the document, or what permissions the plan requires. With zero annotation coverage these gaps matter.

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 the action front-loaded and the usage note second. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 single-parameter diagnostic with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it checks and when to run it. It leaves the report/return shape and the safety profile (read-only vs. mutating) unstated, which are the only notable omissions.

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?

One required parameter (planId) at 0% schema description coverage. The description's repeated reference to 'an executed plan' implies planId identifies that plan, so the parameter is inferable, but no format, source, or provenance detail is added.

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 ('re-inspect'), the resource ('nodes created by an executed plan'), and enumerates the mismatch categories it detects (missing nodes, wrong component/variant, text, layout, unbound tokens). It is clearly distinct from figma_execute_plan and figma_inspect by content, though it never names a sibling to route against.

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 explicit timing guidance: 'Use after the user edited things or before implementing code.' That is concrete context for invocation, but it names no alternatives (e.g., why not figma_inspect or code_verify_usage) and states no preconditions beyond the plan existing.

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