figma_patch_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'without touching siblings or re-stating the whole subtree' as a behavioral trait, but it does not disclose authorization needs, failure modes, rate limits, or the response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, this is a moderate disclosure.

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 that efficiently conveys the action, resource, and key behavioral traits. However, the inaccuracy regarding listed properties (some not in schema) detracts from its value, though conciseness itself is acceptable.

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 has 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to describe the return value, error handling, or constraints like node existence. The misleading property list further reduces completeness. The sibling tools provide some context, but the description alone leaves significant 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, leaving the description to compensate. However, the description lists properties like 'fill, stroke, radius, effects, blendMode, clip' that are not present in the schema (which has additionalProperties: false). This is misleading and adds confusion rather than clarity. It does not explain the meaning of the schema-defined parameters beyond their names.

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 action 'Patch' and the resource 'EXISTING node', listing specific properties that can be modified. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like figma_delete_node, figma_reorder_node, etc., by emphasizing it does not affect siblings or require re-stating the whole subtree.

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 when to use this tool: for updating specific properties of an existing node without touching siblings or re-stating the subtree. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context of sibling tools and the property list provides sufficient guidance for an AI agent.

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