Apply a shared style

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, destructive operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that the layer follows the style afterward, but it does not detail what existing style values are overwritten or whether the action is reversible.

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, front-loaded with the action, then the value proposition. Every sentence earns its place and neither restates the title nor pads with boilerplate.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the core behavior and the source of styleId. It could briefly mention what happens to existing local style values, but annotations already signal the destructive nature.

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 nodeId and styleId, including the selection fallback for nodeId. The description adds only that styleId comes from figma_list_library, which is helpful but not enough to exceed the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: applies paint, text, or effect styles from the current file by id. It also clarifies the source via figma_list_library and the intended outcome ('layer follows style'), making it easy to distinguish from raw fill/stroke setters.

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 'right way to make something match' sentence gives a clear when-to-use signal and explains why it beats copying hex codes. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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