figma_generate_react

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. However, it only states the basic action and does not mention what the generated component looks like, whether it returns code as a string, any dependencies, or side effects. It does not contradict annotations (none exist), but provides minimal behavioral context.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action and object. There is no wasted wording or redundancy. However, while concise, it is arguably under-specified for the complexity of the tool, but that is already captured in other dimensions.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and numerous sibling code generation tools, this terse description is profoundly incomplete. It provides no information about parameter options, expected output, limitations, or which sibling tool to use. The agent would have no way to correctly configure or invoke the tool based on this description alone.

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 has 5 parameters, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain any of the parameters such as 'typescript', 'styleFormat', 'includeProps', or 'componentName'. It only loosely implies 'nodeId' via 'from a node'. With zero coverage and no parameter explanations, the description fails to convey the meaning of the options.

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 tool's function: 'Generate React component from a node.' It uses a specific verb ('generate'), identifies the output ('React component'), and specifies the source ('from a node'). This distinguishes it from siblings like figma_generate_html or figma_generate_css, which target different output formats.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as figma_generate_html, figma_generate_css, and figma_generate_swiftui represent similar code generation actions, but the description does not explain scenarios where React generation is preferred or where other tools should be used.

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