figma_import_component_by_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses a critical limitation (same team library only), the source of keys, and the alternative workflow. It doesn't mention permissions, reversibility, or return value, but the import/instance creation behavior is clearly stated.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then source, then limitation/alternative, then check step. No redundancy and each sentence contributes essential guidance.

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 description covers purpose, key sourcing, and edge cases. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits where the instance is created (parentId behavior), parameter defaults, and return value, leaving an agent to infer invocation details.

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 only 20%, and the description adds meaning for componentKey (source via figma_get_components) but doesn't explain x, y, name, or parentId. The parameter names are suggestive but not sufficient for a tool that creates an instance.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Import a published component by its library key and create an instance.' It distinguishes from figma_clone_node for external libraries, but does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named figma_create_instance sibling.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: works only for same-team-library components, and explicitly instructs to use figma_clone_node for external/linked libraries. Also tells the user to run figma_get_components with source='library' first and source='file' for keys.

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