figma_connect_plugin

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions WebSocket as the transport but omits details about connection lifecycle, side effects, or what happens after connecting. This is minimal transparency for a tool that likely establishes a persistent connection.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. Conciseness should not come at the expense of necessary detail; the lack of elaboration on parameters or behavior makes it insufficiently informative.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a connection tool with one parameter and no output schema), the description is woefully incomplete. It doesn't explain how to use the tool, what the connection enables, or expected outcomes, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema contains one parameter ('channel') with a default but no description, and the tool description provides no explanation of what 'channel' means or how it affects the connection. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's purpose unclear.

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 clearly states the action ('Connect') and the target ('Figma plugin'), with the method ('via WebSocket') adding specificity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are mostly get/set operations, though it could be more explicit about what 'connect' entails.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or setup steps. The description only states the action without context on typical use cases or preconditions.

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