figma_blame_node

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the binary-search cost profile (~log2(N) API calls instead of N), the autosave default and why it improves attribution, and a known quirk (system 'Figma' user flagged via attribution_certainty='system_attributed'). It omits auth/permission requirements and what happens when no introduction point is found within max_versions_to_walk.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then progressively narrower operational detail; every sentence conveys facts (cost model, return fields, autosave behavior, target constraint, fallback). Dense but slightly overpacked — the autosave and system-attribution points could be tightened without losing information.

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?

Covers what an agent needs for a 7-parameter, zero-required, no-output-schema tool: what it returns (label/author/timestamp metadata), the cost of running it, target-selection rules, selection fallback, and a known attribution edge case. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit return-description sentence.

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 already 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds a genuine cross-parameter constraint absent from the schema: mutual exclusivity of target_component_property and target_child_node_id, and the node_id-to-selection fallback. It also explains the rationale for include_autosaves, which the schema only asserts.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Find the version that introduced a specific change') plus a plain-language gloss ('answers who/when added this') that removes any ambiguity about the tool's output. The resource is precisely scoped to a node's history, which is distinguishable from siblings like figma_get_file_versions or figma_diff_versions by the attribution framing.

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 clear context ('answers who/when added this') and a hard usage rule ('Specify EXACTLY ONE of target_component_property or target_child_node_id'), plus a fallback when node_id is omitted. However, it never names an alternative tool or says when NOT to use this — an agent choosing between blame, figma_diff_versions, and figma_get_changes_since_version gets no routing help.

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