figma-mcp-go

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

Adds critical behavioral detail beyond annotations: explains that 'Each frame becomes one page in order' (mapping/ordering behavior). Annotations already declare destructive/file-system hints, so description appropriately focuses on content structure rather than repeating safety warnings.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence delivers core functionality immediately; second sentence provides use-case context. Front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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?

Adequately complete for a file-export tool: explains input-to-output mapping (frames→pages), file format, and use cases. No output schema exists; while description could mention return value or overwrite behavior given destructiveHint:true, the annotations sufficiently cover the safety profile.

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 coverage is 100% with full descriptions for both nodeIds and outputPath. Description reinforces the 'ordered' aspect of nodeIds ('in order') but does not add syntax, validation rules, or examples beyond the schema itself. Baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

Specific verb ('Export') + resource ('frames') + format ('multi-page PDF') clearly stated. Distinguishes from sibling screenshot tools via 'multi-page PDF' and 'pitch decks, proposals' use cases.

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 clear positive guidance ('Ideal for pitch decks, proposals, and slide exports') establishing when to use the tool. Lacks explicit negative guidance or named alternatives (e.g., not mentioning when to use get_screenshot instead).

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