Conduit

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

Annotations provide rich behavioral context (e.g., idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false, edge case warnings about batch updates and parameter requirements). The description adds minimal behavioral detail beyond annotations, but it does specify the return format ('content: Array of objects...'), which is useful since there's no output schema. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise return value explanation. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and return format, but could better integrate with annotations to explain parameter interactions (e.g., 'nodeId/styles' vs. 'entries') or prerequisites. The annotations compensate well, but the description itself has minor 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 the schema fully documents parameters like 'entries', 'nodeId', and 'styles'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'nodeId/styles' and 'entries' or clarifying style property interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 ('Sets'), the resource ('text style properties'), and the target ('one or more nodes in Figma'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_text' (which likely changes text content) and 'set_text_content' by focusing specifically on style properties like font, size, weight, etc.

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 updating text styles, and annotations provide edge case warnings about valid node IDs and batch updates. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'set_node_style' (which might apply broader styles) or 'get_text_style' (for reading styles), leaving some ambiguity.

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