Add or modify border stroke on Figma elements such as frames, cards, buttons, or rectangles with specified color, width, and alignment.
Add or update border stroke on a frame, card, button, or rectangle
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| color | Yes | Hex stroke color (e.g. '#E2E8F0') | |
| nodeId | Yes | Target node ID | |
| weight | No | Stroke border width in pixels (defaults to 1) | |
| strokeAlign | No | Border alignment |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only indicates that a stroke is added or updated. It does not disclose whether existing stroke properties are overwritten, what happens with unsupported node types, or any side effects or permissions needed.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and its applicable target types.
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 there is no output schema and no annotations, a 12-word description is insufficient for a mutating tool with four parameters. Missing context includes update semantics, alignment defaults, and what the agent should expect after execution.
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?
The input schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description provides no extra meaning about how color, weight, or strokeAlign interact, but the schema is sufficient for basic parameter understanding.
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 phrase 'Add or update border stroke' names a specific verb and resource, and enumerates target node types (frame, card, button, rectangle), making the tool's function unmistakable. It stands apart from siblings like set_effects and set_autolayout, which address different visual properties.
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 offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it state conditions where another sibling (e.g., update_node or set_effects) would be more appropriate. Although the target types imply some use cases, no exclusions or comparisons are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.