import_html_to_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 reasonably well: it discloses the key safety trait ('Nothing is sent to Figma yet'), the return value (a planId), and conditional behavior (DS component substitution when a design system is scanned). It omits permissions, error behavior, and whether the plan persists, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence carries information (what converts, DS behavior, return value, side-effect scope). The long enumeration of converted properties is slightly run-on but still earns its place by conveying conversion fidelity.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned planId and its consumer. All nine parameters are schema-documented and the two-phase preview/execute pattern is explained, so an agent has enough to call it correctly; only error handling and plan lifetime are unaddressed.

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 all nine parameters, including nested target/targets/mappings/viewport details. The description only obliquely touches parameters (the design-system sentence gestures at useDesignSystem and mappings, and it mentions fonts), so the baseline of 3 for a fully documented schema is correct.

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 and resource — 'Convert an HTML page or folder ... into an editable Design Plan' — and enumerates the fidelity of the conversion (flexbox→Auto Layout, colors, borders, fonts, RTL, SVG). It even names the downstream consumer (figma_execute_plan) and the analogous sibling (figma_preview_plan), so an agent can place it relative to siblings without opening a 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?

It clearly establishes the workflow context: this produces a plan, and execution happens later via figma_execute_plan; 'Nothing is sent to Figma yet' tells the agent this is the staging step. The main gap is that it never contrasts with the sibling figma_import_html, so the agent must guess which HTML entry point to pick.

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