design_to_code

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions PR creation but lacks details on authentication, permission requirements, commit process, or error handling. The tool's behavior regarding mutation (creating a PR) is stated but not elaborated upon.

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 concise with two sentences. The main purpose is stated first, making it easy to grasp. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient and free of fluff.

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 the complexity (4 parameters, conversion and PR creation, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., PR URL), mention dependencies (e.g., Git, Figma API), or address security or setup requirements. More context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 covers all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal new information beyond stating that Figma URLs or file IDs are accepted, which is already in the schema. No additional semantic details provided.

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?

Description clearly states the tool converts Figma designs to React components and creates a GitHub PR. It specifies the verb ('Convert' and 'create') and resources (Figma design, React component, GitHub PR), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze_figma_design' (analysis only) and 'create_design_pr' (PR creation alone).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'analyze_figma_design' or 'create_design_pr'. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or conditions (e.g., when the Figma design is ready for conversion).

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