Apply heading and body fonts to all text nodes in a Figma frame, standardizing typography across an artboard in one batch.
Batch apply heading and body typography system across all text nodes inside a frame or artboard
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bodyFont | No | Font family for body text, badges, and controls | Inter |
| rootNodeId | Yes | Root frame or artboard ID (e.g. '16:506') | |
| headingFont | No | Font family for headings | Playfair Display |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Batch apply ... across all text nodes' usefully discloses that this mutates every text node in scope, but it omits whether existing font settings are overwritten, permission requirements, and reversibility.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It communicates the action and scope efficiently, though it could be slightly tighter.
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 bulk mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description states the operation but omits behavioral context such as overwrite semantics and confirmation of what changes. Adequate but with 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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description's 'heading and body typography system' and 'frame or artboard' loosely map to the params but add no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (apply) and resource (typography theme) plus the scope (heading and body system across all text nodes in a frame/artboard). It is distinguishable from siblings like create_text or set_text_content, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 when-to-use, when-not, or alternatives are given. The 'batch ... across all text nodes' phrasing implies a bulk styling scenario but leaves the agent to infer the conditions that select this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.