figma_check_design_parity

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return structure and that fix items target design-side (Figma calls) or code-side (file edits) depending on canonicalSource, which is meaningful. But it never clarifies whether the tool itself mutates anything or that fix items are advisory only.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the workflow hint. Alternating between purpose and result contents is efficient with minimal waste.

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 complex nested-input tool with no output schema, the description does sketch the return shape (score, categorized discrepancies, fix items). But it does not explain the discrepancy categories or the parity score semantics, so an agent still has uncertainty about interpreting results.

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 nested codeSpec structure is already well documented field-by-field. The description adds only the workflow hint about filling codeSpec after reading source, which the schema partly implies. Baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas is appropriate.

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+resource+goal: comparing a Figma component's design specs against code-side data to find discrepancies. It also names the return payload (parity score, discrepancies, fix items). It does not differentiate from related siblings like figma_ds_verify or figma_audit_design_system_report, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Provides a concrete prerequisite ordering ('Read the component source code first, then pass the data in codeSpec'), which is genuinely useful usage context. However it gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and never routes the agent toward or away from alternatives such as figma_ds_verify.

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