apply_to_variants

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool writes tokens, can clear properties via clearProperties, offers a dry run mode, and targets descendants by layerName and layerType. This provides good transparency about side effects and behavior.

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?

The description is a single paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and then adds details. It is fairly concise for the complexity, though it could be broken into shorter sentences. No waste, but could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality well but lacks details on several required parameters and does not describe the return value. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It explains template, layerName, layerType, clearProperties, and dryRun, but fails to describe url, nodeId, fileKey, and property (which is required). The property parameter is mentioned but not defined. This leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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?

The description clearly states the tool 'bulk-apply tokens to every variant of a Figma component_set in a single call', using a template with placeholders. It is specific about the resource (component_set variants) and the action (applying tokens), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_token which apply to individual nodes.

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 description gives explicit context for when the tool is useful: 'Solves the tab bar / button / chip / icon-set shape' and mentions it works for any naming convention. It also describes the dryRun feature for testing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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