Modify a Figma text node's content by passing the node ID and new text string.
Set the text content of an existing text node in Figma
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | New text content | |
| nodeId | Yes | The ID of the text node to modify |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('set text content') but does not disclose that existing text will be overwritten, possible error cases for invalid node IDs, permissions, or any side effects. The description mostly restates what the tool name already conveys.
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. It states the action, target, and context efficiently.Purpose and scope are clear without any wasted words.
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 low complexity (2 simple parameters, full schema coverage, no output schema), the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It clearly targets existing text nodes. However, a brief note about overwriting the existing text or batch alternatives would round out the context.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and their meanings. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond reinforcing that the node must already exist and be a text node. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Set'), a precise resource ('text content of an existing text node'), and the domain ('in Figma'). The word 'existing' distinguishes this from create_text, and the singular 'a text node' contrasts with set_multiple_text_contents.
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 implies usage for modifying one existing text node, but it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over siblings like set_multiple_text_contents or create_text. There is no when/when-not guidance, only a contextual cue via 'existing'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.