figma-mcp-go

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

The description aligns with annotations (destructive creation) and adds 'local' scope context not present in structured fields. However, it omits behavioral details like whether names must be unique, what the default 'Mode 1' implies (visible in params but not described behaviorally), or the effect of openWorldHint=true.

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?

Single sentence is efficiently structured with action front-loaded. However, given the destructive nature and lack of output schema, the extreme brevity leaves important behavioral questions unanswered, slightly undershooting the optimal information density.

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?

For a destructive tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but incomplete. It fails to address return value implications, side effects (e.g., automatic creation of initial mode), or how this interacts with the sibling variable management tools.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage ('Collection name', 'Name for the initial mode'). The description provides no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline 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 action (Create) and resource (local variable collection) clearly. The term 'local' helps scope the operation, though it could better distinguish from the sibling 'create_variable' tool by clarifying this creates a container/mode group rather than individual variables.

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 creating individual variables directly, or prerequisites such as whether a document must be open. No mention of error conditions like name collisions.

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