figma_variables

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions mutation sub-ops like 'create', 'setValue', 'bind', and notes color format acceptance, but fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as error handling, permissions required, side effects (e.g., on variables or binding), or output format. The description is insufficiently transparent for a tool with multiple complex sub-operations.

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 dense sentence listing multiple sub-operations without structure. While it front-loads the purpose, the lack of bullet points or clear separation makes it hard to parse. It could be more concise by grouping related sub-ops and using formatting.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values for any sub-op (e.g., whether 'list' returns an array, or 'create' returns an ID). Behavioral context is missing. The description covers the basic sub-ops but lacks the depth needed for an agent to use 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partly does by listing required parameters for each sub-op in curly braces (e.g., 'createCollection' {name}), but not all 11 parameters are covered (e.g., nodeIds, variableId, modeId are mentioned but not fully described). The description adds some meaning but is far from exhaustive, leaving many parameters poorly documented.

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 it handles 'Figma Variables CRUD + binding via the plugin' and lists specific sub-operations with details on what each does. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_token' or 'inspect_bound_variables', the focus on variables (as opposed to tokens) and the enumerated sub-ops provide a clear purpose.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description lists sub-operations but does not explain scenarios or prerequisites for each. Given the many sibling tools related to tokens and design, the lack of usage context is a significant gap.

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