figmad-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates frames, shapes, and text, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing content), permissions needed, or error handling, leaving gaps for a mutation 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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys necessary information without redundancy.

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 (reconstructing a webpage in Figma), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers purpose and prerequisites but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on prerequisites and behavior rather than parameters, meeting the baseline for tools with no 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 specific action ('Reconstruct a captured webpage in Figma') and the resources involved ('creates frames, shapes, and text based on the captured DOM structure'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_frame', 'create_rectangle', and 'create_text' by specifying this is a reconstruction of a captured webpage rather than individual element creation.

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 states when to use this tool ('Requires capture_webpage to be called first'), providing a clear prerequisite. It also implies an alternative by referencing the sibling tool 'capture_webpage' as a necessary precursor, though it doesn't explicitly list other alternatives.

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