figma_generate_css

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Generate CSS from a node's styles' and does not state whether the operation is read-only, what output format is returned, whether it creates files, or any side effects or constraints.

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 efficient sentence with no waste or fluff, and the core action is front-loaded. However, given the four-parameter schema and absence of other contextual details, it may be too terse to be fully effective.

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?

The tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description adds minimal contextual information beyond the core action. It doesn't explain how parameters affect output, what the return value looks like, or when this tool is preferable to sibling generators.

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 0% and the description does not compensate. 'A node's styles' weakly implies the role of nodeId, but the remaining parameters (useVariables, classNamePrefix, includeChildren) are completely unexplained, leaving their semantics entirely to the schema's bare type names.

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 action ('Generate CSS') and a specific resource ('a node's styles'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling code-generation tools like figma_generate_html, figma_generate_react, and figma_generate_tailwind_config by its output format.

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?

The description implies the tool should be used when CSS output is desired, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose it over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. It is serviceable but leaves the comparison to siblings implicit.

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