figma_diff_versions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses API-call costs, exactly what is returned by default, what additional detail `component_ids` unlocks, and the special Desktop Bridge session-buffer behavior for metadata changes. It also lists what remains untracked, which is strong behavioral disclosure for a diff tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and each clause generally earns its place by covering cost, coverage, or limitations. It is dense and somewhat long for a single paragraph, but the complexity of the tool and the importance of the exclusions justify most of the length.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return behavior, and it does: default page-structure diff, optional per-node deep diffs, metadata changes via the Desktop Bridge, and explicit coverage gaps. Combined with the cost and limitation details, an agent has enough information to call the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema for `component_ids`: it explains that deep diffs run at depth=2, what kinds of changes are included for COMPONENT_SETs, and that each scoped node costs 2 API calls. It does not add much for `mode`, `fileUrl`, or `from_version` beyond the schema, which keeps it from being a 5.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Diff two versions of a Figma file." It clearly distinguishes the core operation from sibling version tools by explaining the page-structure baseline and the optional per-node deep diff, so an agent can identify what this tool does without opening the 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?

The description gives clear in-tool usage guidance, such as using `current` for `to_version` and passing `component_ids` for deep diffs, and it enumerates important coverage exclusions. However, it never explicitly names when to use this tool versus close siblings like `figma_get_changes_since_version` or `figma_generate_changelog`; it only points vaguely to complementary tools via `notes[]`.

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