set_text_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this modifies an existing text node, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., invalid nodeId). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every element ('Set', 'text content', 'existing text node', 'Figma') earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly. No fluff or redundancy is present.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on permissions, error handling, return values, or side effects. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall tool behavior is underspecified for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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%, with both parameters ('nodeId', 'text') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples, format details, or constraints). According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 ('Set') and target resource ('text content of an existing text node in Figma'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_text' (which creates new text) and 'set_multiple_text_contents' (which modifies multiple nodes). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what distinguishes it from other text-related tools like 'set_text_case' or 'set_text_decoration'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing text node), exclusions (e.g., not for non-text nodes), or comparisons to siblings like 'set_multiple_text_contents' for bulk operations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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