Set board properties (FigJam)

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

Annotations already declare idempotent/non-destructive, so the lower bar is met; the description adds genuinely new behavior — a field that doesn't match a node's type errors only for that node and leaves it unchanged, i.e. per-node partial failure. It also flags that editing is unverified in FigJam/Slides.

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 scope and the color rule, and each clause carries field/type mapping. The trailing 'Editors: unverified in FigJam, Slides' is cryptic and slightly undercuts an otherwise tight, information-dense block.

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 9-param mutation tool with no output schema, it covers which fields apply to which node types and what happens on mismatch. It stops short of describing the success response, but the behavioral picture is otherwise complete.

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 89% (baseline 3), but the description goes beyond it by explaining that `color` resolves per node type to sticky fill, shape preset, connector line, table fill, or text fill, and that a section accepts hex only — real semantic detail the schema omits.

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+resource (set FigJam board properties) and a concrete scope (1–500 nodes, applied by node type). It also distinguishes itself from a sibling by routing hex paints to figma_set_fills.

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?

Names one clear alternative with a selecting condition ('Hex paints on any node: figma_set_fills'), and specifies per-field node-type applicability. However it gives no broad when-to-use guidance versus other mutation siblings like set_text_properties or edit_table.

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