figma_import_style_by_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates mutation ('become available locally') and batch support, but does not mention potential side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or return behavior. For an import tool that modifies local state, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence contributes unique information (what/why, prerequisite, batch support, follow-up action). No redundant or filler content.

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 is relatively simple (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), and the description covers the workflow well. However, it omits any information about return values or error conditions, which is important for a tool that modifies local state. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions batch support via styleKeys, but the schema already describes that parameter as 'Array of style keys to import (batch)'. It also suggests a method for finding keys, but this is more contextual than parameter-specific.

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 ('Import library styles by key'), the resource (library styles), and the resulting state ('become available locally'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like figma_get_styles (read-only) and figma_apply_style (applies styles), and from figma_import_component_by_key by focusing specifically on styles.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: to import styles by key, with a prerequisite step (find keys using figma_get_styles) and a follow-up step (apply with figma_apply_style). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the workflow context is strong enough to guide an agent.

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