set_text_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool sets text content on an existing node, but does not disclose permission requirements, error behavior for non-text or missing nodes, or reversibility. This is a mutation tool and should provide more context.

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 wasted words. It efficiently states the tool's purpose.

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 simple two-parameter mutation, the description covers the basic action and the existing-node precondition. However, it lacks details on failure modes (e.g., invalid nodeId, wrong node type) and any effects on styling or other properties, leaving some 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 both nodeId and text are already documented. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, e.g., 'text content' echoes the parameter descriptions. 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 is specific: 'Set the text content of an existing text node in Figma' uses a clear verb+resource pattern. It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_text_style (different property) and create_text (creates a new node), and from set_multiple_text_contents (multiple nodes).

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 phrase 'existing text node' clearly implies this tool is for modifying an existing node rather than creating one. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, such as pointing to set_multiple_text_contents for batch operations.

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