validate_figma_tokens

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

With no annotations, the description covers expected checks, report contents (errors, warnings, sync status), and mode behavior. It lacks explicit mention of side effects (e.g., read-only), but for a validation tool this is acceptable.

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 sentences with no wasted words, front-loaded with the primary action and key features. Efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Despite no output schema, description mentions a detailed report with errors, warnings, and sync status, giving a reasonable picture of output. Could be more precise about return structure, but sufficient for a validation tool.

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%, providing baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining the expected format of figmaVariableDefs (dictionary from another tool) and clarifying strict mode behavior, going beyond schema descriptions.

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 it validates Figma variables against local token definitions, listing specific checks (naming mismatches, type errors, etc.). While it is specific, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'validate_tokens' which might have overlapping purpose.

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?

Description implies usage for validating Figma tokens and offers mode selection (strict/non-strict), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or recommend alternatives among sibling tools like 'validate_tokens'.

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