Plumb · studio (direct + build a full page)

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, meaning it's a write operation; the description confirms it builds into the Figma file. It details the entire process (reference discovery, screenshotting, palette synthesis, page composition, build path) but does not add much beyond what annotations already imply. However, the level of detail is sufficient for understanding the tool's behavior.

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 relatively long but each sentence provides valuable information about the tool's process, output, and usage. It is structured well, front-loading the main action, and avoids redundancy. Slight verbosity is acceptable given the complexity.

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?

No output schema, but the description clearly lists the returned items: picked references, palette, node ids, and authoredPath. It also tells the agent to feed these into plumb_review. This makes the tool's input/output contract complete and actionable.

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 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds further context for each parameter: brief drives discovery/palette/copy; count has default 4; pageName default 'Studio'; references are prioritized. This enriches the schema information and helps the agent use the tool correctly.

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 explicitly states that the tool directs a full landing page from a one-line brief and builds it into Figma. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like plumb_design by mentioning the same write path, and from other plumb_studio_* tools by being the 'headline director-completion tool'.

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 explains that the tool is used when given a brief to produce a full page, and it directs the output to be fed into plumb_review for the critique loop. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context of the brief and the detailed process implies its specific use case.

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