audit_figma_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states it 'analyzes sync status' and 'identifies' issues, implying a read-only operation, but it does not confirm whether any data is modified, what side effects exist, or what the output format is. The dependency on another tool is noted, but there is no mention of performance, rate limits, or expected response structure.

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 two sentences plus a note, all front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds information: first defines the core function, second details what it analyzes, third states a critical prerequisite. No wasted words.

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 moderately complex (auditing multiple aspects) and has no output schema. The description does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., a report, list of discrepancies, success/failure). This is a notable gap for a tool that likely produces structured results. The prerequisite and coverage of parameters are good, but missing output details reduce completeness.

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% with 3 parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by noting that figmaVariableDefs must come from mcp_figma_get_variable_defs and expects a specific key-value format. This helps the agent prepare the correct input. The description does not fully explain figmaNodeId or figmaFileUrl, but the schema itself is clear.

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 verb 'audit' and 'cross-reference' with specific resources: Figma variables and local design tokens. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'validate_tokens' or 'audit_design' by focusing on sync between Figma and local tokens.

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 specifies a prerequisite: 'Requires Figma variable data from mcp_figma_get_variable_defs.' It also outlines what the tool identifies (unused tokens, missing definitions, naming discrepancies), giving clear context. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool or provide explicit alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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