generate_implementation_contract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It identifies the operation as 'Analyzes' (implying read-only) and lists the contract sections, but it does not explicitly state that the tool does not modify the Figma file, nor mention any API limitations, rate limits, or error behavior. The transparency is adequate but not richly detailed beyond the obvious output.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Analyzes a Figma frame or component subtree') and then lists the contract contents. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, but the description compensates by enumerating the contract sections, giving the agent a clear sense of expected results. It could be more complete with the return format (e.g., JSON object) or success/error conditions, but given the tool's complexity, the current description is largely self-sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only rephrases the node_id concept as 'frame or component subtree'. While it lists output categories, this does not enhance parameter understanding, so the baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: analyzing a Figma frame/component subtree and producing an implementation contract. It enumerates specific contract contents (scope, assets, states, prototype interactions, dependencies, typography, colors, acceptance criteria), which distinguishes it from sibling extraction tools like extract_design_tokens or extract_flows that target narrower outputs.

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 description implies usage: when you need a comprehensive implementation contract from a Figma node. However, it provides no exclusions or alternatives, such as 'for token extraction use extract_design_tokens' or 'when auditing accessibility use audit_accessibility'. With many sibling tools present, this missing guidance leaves the agent to infer the right context.

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