figma_reconnect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it discloses that the reconnection is 'complete'/'force' and what symptoms justify it, but says nothing about side effects such as dropped in-flight operations, plugin state reset, or downtime during reconnect. That is a meaningful gap for a state-resetting 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?

Two short sentences, both load-bearing: the first says what it does, the second says when. The purpose is front-loaded with no filler.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema utility tool, the description covers what it does and when to reach for it. Only the behavioral consequences of forcing a reconnect are left unstated.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is empty and fully consistent. Baseline 4 applies.

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 and resource ('Force a complete reconnection to Figma Desktop'), making the action unambiguous. It does not name siblings such as figma_reload_plugin or figma_get_status, so an agent must infer the distinction on its own.

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 clear trigger conditions ('when connection seems stale or after switching files') that an agent can pattern-match against observed symptoms. It stops short of explicit exclusions or pointing at the alternative tools to try first.

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