figma_ds_extract_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that source is 'capped' (truncation behaviour), that the tool is extraction-oriented with porting performed by the agent afterwards (implying it does not itself write the component files), and that it is restricted to Local Mode. It does not state what happens on an unknown component name or what the failure/empty result looks like, which keeps it off 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the long return-value enumeration, then the workflow and mode constraint. The enumeration is dense but each item is substantive since there is no output schema. Slightly heavy as a single run-on sentence but no filler.

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 2-parameter extraction tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers the return payload, the downstream workflow, and the Local Mode prerequisite. Only gaps are failure behaviour for a missing/ambiguous component name and any size expectations beyond 'capped'.

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; the description adds genuine value by explaining how the two inputs connect to output — outDir is where the component gets ported (<outDir>/src/components/<Name>/) and component must be a name drawn from the inventory. That mapping from input to resulting path is meaning the schema alone does not convey.

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 and resource — 'deep-extract ONE component from the inventory for porting into the design system' — and then enumerates exactly what it returns (source, import closure, prop contract, call-site variants, vendor classification, style touchpoints, CSF3 scaffold). The 'ONE component' + 'from the inventory' scoping, plus the reference to figma_ds_analyze's manifest, cleanly separates it from broad lookup tools like figma_search_components or figma_get_component_details.

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 operating context: it is the porting step of a workflow, the agent subsequently writes to <outDir>/src/components/<Name>/ and records progress with figma_ds_status, and it is 'Local Mode only'. What it lacks is an explicit contrast with near-neighbours such as figma_get_component_for_development_deep or figma_ds_scaffold, so an agent must infer when this is the right call versus those.

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