figma-mcp-go

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

While annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnly=false, and openWorldHint=true, the description fails to explain what gets destroyed/overwritten (likely external files) or that this writes to disk rather than returning data in-memory. It adds no behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

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 with zero waste: first defines the action and formats, second provides the use case context. Front-loaded with the most critical information and appropriately brief for a single-parameter tool.

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?

Adequate for basic invocation but lacks critical context given the annotations: it doesn't specify whether the export writes to disk (openWorldHint) or returns content, nor does it warn about the destructive nature. For a tool with destructive potential, this omission is a significant gap despite the simple 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 coverage, the baseline is met. The description mentions 'CSS custom properties' which slightly augments the schema's 'css' value, but otherwise relies entirely on the schema's parameter documentation without adding syntax examples or validation details.

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 clearly specifies the verb (export), resource (design tokens, variables and paint styles), and output formats (JSON or CSS custom properties). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like get_variable_defs by emphasizing code-ready export formats versus raw metadata retrieval.

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 phrase 'Ideal for bridging Figma variables into your codebase' implies the use case (developer handoff/integration), but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_styles or get_variable_defs, and doesn't mention prerequisites like file system permissions implied by openWorldHint.

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