figma_ds_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that progress is persisted to <outDir>/.extraction/status.json, that persistence is meant to survive session boundaries, and that the tool is Local Mode only. It still omits concurrency/overwrite behavior and permission requirements, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 two tight sentences with no wasted text. The core behavior and the read-vs-update calling convention are front-loaded.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, it explains persistence, mode constraints, and the read/update split. It could say more about what the progress summary contains, but the essential invocation context is present.

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 schema already documents outDir and the nested update object. The description still adds useful semantics: outDir should match the one used in figma_ds_analyze, and omitting update means read-only progress summary. That is meaningful guidance beyond the schema, though not rich enough for 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 states a specific verb and resource: read or update design-system extraction porting progress, persisted in status.json. It clearly distinguishes the read-only form (only outDir) from the update form (pass update). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings such as figma_ds_verify or figma_ds_extract_component, so it stops short of a 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?

It gives explicit invocation guidance: call with only outDir to get a summary, or pass update to record a component's status. It also adds a meaningful exclusion, 'Local Mode only'. It does not describe when to use this instead of adjacent workflow tools, but the when-to-use instruction is clear.

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