figma_publish_dev_resources

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the side effect: 'Attaches code file URLs to component nodes' and 'links will appear in Figma's Dev Mode panel.' However, it does not mention whether existing links are overwritten, what permissions are required, or what the tool returns, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Three concise sentences cover the core action, the prerequisite workflow, and the observable result. There is no fluff or redundant repetition of schema details. Front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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 simple (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), and the description covers purpose, usage order, and visible effect. It could mention error/overwrite behavior or read-back confirmation, but given the low complexity and rich schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and their fields. The description adds context that the resources are 'code file URLs' attached to component nodes and that they correspond to 'selected matches' from figma_match_components, but it does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema.

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 a specific action ('Publish dev resource links to Figma Dev Mode') and the resource affected ('Attaches code file URLs to component nodes'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like figma_get_dev_resources and figma_match_components by describing the publishing/attach action and the prerequisite workflow.

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 explicitly instructs the correct sequence: 'Run figma_match_components first to generate the mapping, then publish selected matches.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the workflow guidance is strong.

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