figma_post_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that @mentions render as plain text and do not trigger Figma notifications, and it explains threaded replies, but it omits permissions/auth requirements, visibility implications, and failure modes for a mutation operation.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then usage scenario, threading support, and a clearly marked limitation. Every sentence earns its place and the @mention caveat is kept separate from the core instruction.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, intended workflow, reply behavior, and a key limitation. It could additionally mention permissions or expected post-success behavior, but the essential call 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 all six parameters clearly. The description adds useful context about node pinning and reply threading, but it does not add syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, and coordinates are left entirely 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Post a comment on a Figma file.' It also distinguishes optional scoping ('pinned to a specific design node') and reply behavior, which cleanly separates it from sibling retrieval and deletion tools like figma_get_comments and figma_delete_comment.

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 a concrete usage scenario: 'Use after figma_check_design_parity to notify designers of drift when code is the canonical source.' This is clear guidance, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives for other comment workflows.

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