figma-mcp-go

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

While not contradicting annotations, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action. It fails to explain what 'destructive' entails, the side effects of creation, or the implication of idempotentHint:false (duplicate creation attempts).

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 filler. However, given the tool's complexity and destructive nature, the brevity may be excessive rather than optimally informative.

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?

Minimum viable for the tool's complexity. The input schema is fully documented, but the description lacks guidance on the variable system ecosystem (modes, collections) and omits return value information despite having no output schema.

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 schema carries the full burden of parameter documentation. The description adds no parameter semantics, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 (variable) with scope ('in a collection'), distinguishing it from sibling create_variable_collection. However, it omits the domain context (design tokens) that would make it fully clear.

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 versus alternatives like set_variable_value (updating existing) or create_variable_collection (prerequisite). No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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