add_figma_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It hints at a mutation ('add'), but doesn't disclose if this requires permissions, affects existing data, or has side effects like rate limits. No output format or error handling is described, leaving key behaviors opaque.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be more specific. The structure is clear, but the brevity contributes to underspecification rather than optimal clarity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'add to your context' entails, such as whether it returns a file ID or confirmation, or how it integrates with sibling tools. More detail is needed to guide effective use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'url' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the URL is for a Figma file, which is already clear from the tool name. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 states the action ('add') and resource ('Figma file'), but it's vague about what 'add to your context' means operationally. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'view_node' or 'post_comment', which might involve similar file interactions. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the outcome.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid Figma URL or authentication, nor does it compare to siblings like 'view_node' for viewing files. The description offers no context for usage decisions.

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