figma_post_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'post' without revealing side effects, permission requirements, or the meaning of the optional x/y coordinates. It also doesn't explain how the comment relates to existing comments or what response to expect.

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 filler words, and it is front-loaded with the primary action. However, it is under-specified in content, which is a trade-off, but for pure conciseness and structure it earns a high score.

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 annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify coordinate semantics, message expectations, or response format. This bare-minimum description leaves significant gaps for an agent to navigate a non-trivial operation.

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 property descriptions are entirely absent (0% coverage), and the description only hints that fileKey and nodeId distinguish file-level vs. node-level comments. It does not explain the x and y coordinates or the required message field, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter 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 uses the specific verb 'post' and identifies the resource as 'a comment on a file or node', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like figma_get_comments (read) and figma_set_annotation (annotation). The scope maps directly to the fileKey and nodeId parameters, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., figma_get_comments) or any prerequisites such as authentication. There is no context about typical scenarios or when posting to a file vs. a node is appropriate.

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