figmad-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'creates corresponding Figma elements' which implies a write operation, but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, or what happens to existing designs. No rate limits, error conditions, or output format are described. The behavioral context is minimal for a creation tool.

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 perfectly concise at two sentences. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, the second adds important behavioral detail about pattern parsing and Figma element creation. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or fluff. The structure is front-loaded with the primary function.

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 tool's complexity (generative UI design), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and the parsing behavior, but doesn't cover important aspects like what UI patterns are supported, quality of generated designs, error handling, or what the output looks like. For a creative generation tool, more context would be helpful.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context about what the tool expects: 'from a text description' and 'parses the prompt for common UI patterns' clarifies that input is provided through the prompt/description text rather than structured parameters. This compensates for the lack of formal parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Generate a UI design from a text description' specifies the verb (generate) and resource (UI design). It distinguishes from siblings like create_frame or create_rectangle by focusing on high-level design generation rather than low-level element creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from reconstruct_page or other design-related tools.

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 implies usage context: 'Parses the prompt for common UI patterns' suggests this tool is for converting textual descriptions into structured UI elements. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like create_frame for manual creation or reconstruct_page for existing designs. No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned.

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