figma_audit_component_accessibility

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the audit's output (per-category scores and prioritized recommendations), the scope of checks, and the environmental dependency (Desktop Bridge). It stops short of stating explicitly that the operation is read-only / non-mutating on the document, which is the one behavioral fact left implicit.

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then the enumerated categories, then when-to-use and prerequisite. The long category list earns its place by defining audit scope, though it is the bulkiest portion and could be tightened.

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 read-only audit tool with no output schema, the description supplies what matters: the categories inspected, the shape of results (scores plus prioritized recommendations), the prerequisite, and the timing guidance. Whether it mutates the file is the only unaddressed 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (nodeId with its fallback-to-selection behavior, targetSize with WCAG 2.5.8 default and platform overrides) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, 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?

The description names a specific verb (audit) and a specific resource (component/component set), then enumerates the exact categories checked and the return shape (per-category 0-100 scores plus prioritized recommendations). This separates it cleanly from siblings like figma_lint_design or figma_scan_code_accessibility, which operate at file or code level.

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 gives a clear usage window ('use after designing a component to validate accessibility before handoff') and a hard prerequisite ('Requires Desktop Bridge plugin'). It does not name an explicit alternative or state when-not to use it, which keeps it below a 5.

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