figma_get_design_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: events are buffered (and can be cleared), and the tool only works over WebSocket via the Desktop Bridge plugin. It does not say what happens when the buffer is empty, whether events expire, or anything about connection failure modes, leaving a modest gap for a stateful 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then the transport prerequisite, then usage. Every sentence adds something distinct and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 3-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, this covers purpose, return shape, transport prerequisite, and buffering behavior. It could go further on buffer lifetime/expiry and empty-result behavior, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the correct baseline. The description adds only contextual framing (that there is a buffer to query or clear) rather than parameter-level detail beyond 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 verb+resource ('Get recent document changes detected in Figma') and immediately characterizes the payload — node changes, style modifications, change counts. It is distinguishable from most siblings, though it never contrasts itself with closely related tools like figma_get_changes_since_version or figma_diff_versions.

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?

'Use this to understand what changed since you last checked' gives a use case, and the WebSocket/Desktop Bridge prerequisite is a real contextual constraint. But there is no when-not guidance and no mention of the version-diff siblings an agent would plausibly confuse this with.

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