Conduit

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

Annotations provide rich behavioral hints (e.g., readOnlyHint: false, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false, edgeCaseWarnings). The description adds minimal value by mentioning the return format ('Returns: - content: Array of objects...'), which isn't covered in annotations, but it doesn't elaborate on implications like permissions, rate limits, or side effects beyond what annotations already disclose.

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 brief and front-loaded, stating the core action in the first sentence. The second sentence on return values is relevant but could be more integrated. Overall, it avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema), annotations provide extensive coverage (e.g., usageExamples, edgeCaseWarnings), but the description lacks depth in explaining behavioral context or integration with sibling tools. It's minimally adequate but misses opportunities to enhance understanding beyond structured data.

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 detailed parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., nodeId format, text length limits). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, merely restating the tool's purpose without clarifying parameter interactions or usage nuances beyond the schema.

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 ('Sets the text content') and target ('one or more text nodes in Figma'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_text' or 'set_text_style', which could be related text-manipulation tools in the list, leaving room for ambiguity.

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, such as 'set_text' or 'set_text_style' from the sibling list. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios for application, relying solely on the annotations for basic usage hints.

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