Conduit

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

Annotations provide rich behavioral context (idempotent, non-destructive, batch support, edge cases), but the description adds value by specifying the return format ('Array containing a text message with updated node(s) ID(s) or a summary'), which isn't covered in annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and scope, second specifies return format. No wasted words, front-loaded with core functionality, and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 rich annotations (covering safety, idempotency, batch support, examples, warnings) and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It adds return format details not in annotations, though lacks output schema. Minor gap in not explicitly linking to sibling tools.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond mentioning 'direct or by style variable' and 'one or more nodes', which aligns with but doesn't extend schema information.

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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'effect(s)' on 'nodes in Figma', specifying both direct and style variable methods. It distinguishes from sibling 'apply_effect_style' by covering both approaches and batch operations.

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 setting effects on Figma nodes but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'apply_effect_style' or other styling tools. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided beyond what's in annotations.

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