Edit connectors (FigJam)

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds meaningful non-annotation behavior: full pre-validation before the first change, per-item error handling for missing/non-connector nodes, and per-item result returns, though it doesn't restate idempotency or describe retry semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then lists editable fields, then behavioral guarantees, then the editor constraint. Dense but every clause carries usable information with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description still specifies the return shape ('per-item results') and the error model, plus the atomic validation order and the FigJam-only editor scope. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly inside a batch.

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 67%, so the schema documents most fields itself. The description adds value by cross-referencing the `from`/`to` endpoint string format to figma_create_connectors and grouping the editable properties (label, lineType, caps, color, weight, dash, labelBackground) into a coherent set, going slightly beyond a pure restatement.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change existing FigJam connectors in place') with scope (1–200 per call) and enumerates exactly which properties can be edited. The cross-reference to figma_create_connectors for the endpoint string format clearly distinguishes it from the sibling that creates connectors.

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?

Explains that the tool edits existing connectors in place and that ids stay stable, so it 'runs inside figma_batch', and points to figma_create_connectors for the endpoint syntax. It gives clear context but stops short of stating explicit when-not-to-use conditions or naming a fuller set of alternatives.

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