Set locked

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-annotation behavior: per-item results and the partial-failure contract ("one node failing does not fail the call"), which is genuinely useful for retry/error handling.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the return contract, then environment scope. No filler or redundancy; every sentence carries information an agent can act on.

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 helpfully inlines the return shape and failure semantics, and the editor/unsupported-surface note sets expectations for FigJam and Slides. It stops short of documenting the 500-node batch ceiling or session-selection behavior, but is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 50% — session and idempotencyKey are documented in the schema, while nodeIds (max 500) and locked are not. The description only obliquely conveys the boolean semantics of `locked` via "lock or unlock" and adds nothing about nodeIds batching constraints, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ("Lock or unlock nodes") that an agent can immediately distinguish from siblings like figma_set_visible, figma_move_nodes, or figma_set_mask. The bidirectional nature of the operation is made explicit rather than left implicit.

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 "Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides" line gives environmental applicability, which counts as implied usage guidance, but the description never states when to prefer this over related state-change tools or what conditions warrant locking. No explicit when/when-not or alternatives are provided.

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