set_text_style_id

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 implies a mutation ('Apply a text style to a text node'), suggesting it modifies existing data, but does not disclose behavioral traits like permission requirements, error conditions, or what happens if the style ID is invalid. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste-free. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential usage guidance, with every sentence earning its place without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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's moderate complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and usage guidelines but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or return values, which would be beneficial for full 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (nodeId and textStyleId) with clear descriptions. The description does not add any additional meaning or syntax details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Apply a text style') and target resource ('to a text node in Figma'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_font_size or set_text_content that modify different text properties. It precisely identifies what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance by stating 'Use get_styles to find available text style IDs,' which names a specific alternative tool for prerequisite information. This helps the agent understand the workflow and when to invoke other tools, offering clear context for usage.

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