figma_get_changes_since_version

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It usefully discloses the output shape (matching figma_diff_versions) and that to_version defaults implicitly to 'current', but doesn't state that this is a read-only operation, permission/auth needs, or error behavior for an invalid since_version.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core comparison behavior followed by the practical use case. No wasted text.

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 four-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternative, and return shape by referencing figma_diff_versions. The only gap is that return value details depend on the agent already knowing diff_versions output.

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 75%, so the schema does most of the parameter work. The description adds real value by explaining that the comparison target is implicitly current HEAD, but adds nothing about mode enum values or component_ids, leaving those to the schema.

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 operation — compares a given version against current HEAD — and explicitly frames itself as a convenience wrapper for figma_diff_versions. An agent can immediately distinguish it from the sibling: same shape but with to_version pinned to 'current'.

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 scenario ('what's changed since the last code-sync' workflows) and implies the alternative by calling itself a convenience wrapper over figma_diff_versions, but never states an explicit when-not-to-use rule. Clear context, no hard exclusions.

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