Set shadows and blurs

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description aligns by saying 'Replaces' (overwrites existing effects). It additionally discloses that an empty list clears all effects, which is not in the annotations. The description adds useful context (design-system meaning) without contradicting the 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?

Three short, purposeful sentences. The main action is front-loaded, the edge case (empty list) is stated early, and the design-context note is a single salient sentence. No fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 destructive setter with fully documented parameters, the description covers the core behavior, the clearing scenario, and the semantic intent. It doesn't mention multi-node behavior or side effects, but those aren't critical given the schema and annotations. Slight room to note that it replaces all existing effects on the node, though 'replaces' already implies that.

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 coverage is 100% — both parameters and their nested properties are documented in the schema, including defaults and the order/clearing semantics for the effects array. The description adds no new parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Replaces') and a clear resource ('a node’s effects'), and it immediately explains the empty-list behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like figma_set_fill or figma_set_stroke, which target different properties. The added design-systems hint ('what make it look raised means') reinforces the intent.

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 a clear trigger condition ('this is what

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