Edit a table (FigJam)

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

Far exceeds the annotations: it specifies the atomic ordering of operations, that all indices are validated against table size before anything changes, that removed row/column content is lost, that removing every row/column is refused, the 2000-cell cap, the empty-string fill rejection, and the return shape. It also notes editor-verification status for FigJam and Slides, which the annotations do not cover.

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?

Dense but almost every clause carries technical content needed for 12 parameters, and the core action is front-loaded. It is delivered as one run-on block rather than scannable bullet points, which slightly hurts structure for such a complex signature.

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 12-parameter, no-output-schema, low-coverage mutation tool, the description is remarkably complete: it covers operation ordering, index validity, destructive consequences, refusal cases, cell format, and the return payload ('new size and per-cell results'), leaving no material gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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 only 25%, so the description must carry the load and does: it defines cells as 0-based {row, column} with no ids, explains insert positions are post-removal and that each entry appends one, defines move {from, to} and the [{index, width|height}] shape, and documents fill/textColor value domains and the "#FFFFFF" reset rule.

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 (Change) and resource (a FigJam table's structure and cells), which cleanly separates it from the sibling figma_create_table. An agent can tell it edits an existing table rather than creating one without opening the schema.

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 context of use is clear — this is the tool for mutating an existing FigJam table's structure and cells — and the description implies creation is a different operation. However, it never explicitly names figma_create_table as the alternative or states when-not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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