figma-mcp-go

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

Aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true matches 'Create'). The term 'local' adds some context about scope. However, it fails to disclose behavioral nuances like idempotency (creating duplicate names), return values, or the conditional parameter requirements visible in the schema (e.g., color only applies to GRID pattern).

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with no redundant words. However, the brevity comes at the cost of omitting critical context about the tool's complexity and conditional parameter logic, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Inadequate for a 10-parameter tool with complex conditional logic (e.g., color/opacity only for GRID pattern; count/gutterSize only for COLUMNS/ROWS). The description gives no hint of these constraints, leaving agents to discover them through schema inspection or trial and error.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the structured schema carries the full burden of parameter documentation. The description mentions no parameters, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.

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?

States specific verb ('Create') and resource ('local layout grid style'). Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_paint_style or create_text_style by specifying 'grid', though it doesn't explain what distinguishes grid styles from other style types.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_paint_style or apply_style_to_node. No mention of prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions despite the complex parameter interdependencies.

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