figma-mcp-go

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

Annotations declare write/destructive/non-idempotent hints. Description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the node creation pattern (rectangle with image fill) and input constraints (PNG/JPG formats). It does not explicitly describe the non-idempotent nature (calling twice creates two nodes) but covers the creation side-effect well.

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 sentence front-loads core functionality and mechanism; second sentence provides practical workflow guidance. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given 8 parameters with full schema coverage and annotations present, the description adequately covers the creation behavior and input sourcing. Minor gap: no output schema exists, and description doesn't mention what gets returned (e.g., node ID/object), though this is somewhat implied by the creation context.

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 has 100% coverage, establishing baseline 3. Description adds format constraints (PNG/JPG) not explicitly stated in the schema's 'base64-encoded image data' description, and provides workflow context for sourcing imageData via get_screenshot. It elevates the parameter understanding beyond the schema alone.

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?

Description provides specific verb (Import), resource (base64-encoded image), target (Figma), and structural outcome (rectangle with image fill). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_rectangle (empty shape) and get_screenshot (capture only).

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?

Explicitly references sibling tool get_screenshot as a workflow source for imageData ('Use get_screenshot to capture images'), establishing a clear tool pairing. Lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance against alternatives like direct file imports, but provides strong contextual workflow.

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