figma_reload_plugin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses the side effect (page reload), the optional console-clear behavior, and that it returns a confirmation plus current URL. It omits what is lost on reload (in-memory plugin state, unsaved work) and any failure/permission conditions, which matters for a disruptive action.

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 purpose and side effect, then triggers, returns, and a best-fit note; scans quickly. The closing 'Best for rapid iteration' sentence mildly restates the earlier development framing but still adds use-case context.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers purpose, side effects, parameter behavior, return shape, and invocation triggers. Only the destructive consequences of a reload and error conditions are left unaddressed.

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% with a single boolean 'clearConsole' that is already documented with a default. The description restates the same meaning ('optionally clears console logs before reload') without adding format or default nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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+resource combination (reload the Figma page/plugin) and frames it as a test-code-changes action, which separates it from mutation siblings like figma_execute or figma_navigate. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from page-navigation or reconnect tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 trigger phrases ('reload plugin', 'refresh page', 'restart plugin', 'test my changes') and names the context (rapid iteration during plugin development), so an agent can decide to invoke it from a user utterance. No when-not guidance or explicit named alternatives are provided.

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