map_figma_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation is a mapping/transformation and that the result includes suggested props, but it does not explain matching behavior, ambiguity handling, failure cases, or whether any network/auth constraints apply.

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?

One sentence with no filler; the action, source, target, and output type are front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place and the description is easy to parse at a glance.

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 has 3 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description needs to compensate. It leaves unresolved how to choose between parameters, what the exact return shape is, and how matching behaves with no or multiple results. This is a meaningful completeness gap for an agent deciding how to invoke the 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps 'name/node/URL' to the three parameters (figmaName, figmaNodeId, figmaUrl), which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not clarify whether these are alternatives, whether one must be provided, or what happens if multiple are supplied.

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 uses a specific verb 'Map' with a clear source ('Figma component name/node/URL') and target ('corresponding Storybook component'), plus a distinctive result ('suggested props'). This clearly differentiates it from all listed siblings, none of which mention Figma or cross-tool mapping.

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 the use case: when you have Figma identifiers and need a Storybook component. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like get_component or search_stories, nor does it mention exclusions or the relationship between the three possible Figma inputs.

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