figma_generate_handoff_spec

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than directly creating annotations, and it requires a plugin connection for creating annotation nodes. However, it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what the instruction format looks like, or potential side effects.

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 three short sentences, front-loads the purpose, and each sentence adds useful information (purpose, sections, plugin requirement). There is minimal redundancy, though the line break after the first sentence slightly interrupts flow.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the core behavior and prerequisites. However, it leaves gaps around the exact format of the returned instructions, how to handle invalid node IDs, and any limitations or error cases, making it moderately complete but not fully robust.

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 input schema already covers both parameters with clear descriptions and 100% coverage. The description enumerates the available sections, but this duplicates the schema enum without adding new semantic meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Generate a visual design handoff spec annotation in Figma', which clearly states the verb (generate) and resource (handoff spec annotation). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like figma_generate_css and figma_set_annotation by focusing on the handoff spec use case.

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 usage by stating it returns step-by-step instructions to follow, and lists available sections. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when code generation is needed, and no exclusions are given beyond the plugin requirement.

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