figma_generate_component_doc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses what the output contains, that history replaces the manual '## Changelog' section, and that both history sources are off by default. The notable gap is whether outputPath causes a file write or whether markdown is merely returned, which leaves the mutation profile undefined.

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 purpose in sentence one, then output scope, then usage hints. The long mid-sentence enumeration of sections is dense but arguably earns its place by conveying output completeness; overall it is tight for a tool of this complexity.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return value — and it does, listing the markdown sections produced and platform portability. For a 9-parameter tool with nested objects the main missing piece is the write-vs-return behavior of outputPath and any auth/plugin-mode prerequisites.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real param-level semantics: codeInfo should be populated from source read first (variantDefinition, subComponents, sourceFiles, baseComponent) and the exact history payload shape with its intent. It does not explain sections, enrich, or systemName, so it is above baseline but not exhaustive.

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 ('Generate ... component documentation from a Figma component') and immediately enumerates the artifact's contents, so an agent can distinguish it from figma_generate_changelog, figma_get_component_details, or figma_ds_extract_component without opening any 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?

Gives concrete operating guidance: 'For richest output, read the component source code first and pass codeInfo' and the exact opt-in shape for history. It does not, however, name when to prefer a sibling (e.g. figma_get_component_details for raw data) or when not to call it, so it stops short of a 5.

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