Set clip content

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

Annotations cover safety (idempotent, non-destructive, not read-only), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: per-item results where 'one node failing does not fail the call', plus editor coverage (Design verified; FigJam/Slides unverified). It does not mention permission/auth requirements or whether the change is undoable/reversible, so it falls short of fully rich disclosure.

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-loaded with the action and target, then usage, then return shape, then platform scope. Every clause carries information (semantics, error handling, platform support) with no filler or restatement of the name.

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 supplies the return contract (`items: [{ id, ok, error? }]`) and partial-failure behavior, plus platform caveats — enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain: the 500-node maximum and whether the toggle applies uniformly to instances with nested clipping children are not addressed.

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 only 50% (nodeIds and clipsContent are undocumented in the schema), and the description compensates well: it explains what true/false mean semantically and which node types are valid targets. It omits the 500-node batch cap and says nothing about how nodeIds are resolved across files/sessions.

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 ('Turn "Clip content" on or off on frames, components and instances') and immediately scopes what it applies to, explicitly excluding sections and shapes. An agent can distinguish this from sibling mutation tools like figma_set_mask or figma_set_visible 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?

Gives concrete when-to-use for both settings (on = crop photo/overflow to the rounded edge; off = stop a frame cutting off a shadow or overhanging badge) and names the triggering workflow, the check_layout `clipped` finding, tying it to a specific sibling tool. It also states the negative case: sections and shapes get ok:false.

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