figma_bind_variable

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

The annotation already indicates destructiveHint: true, and the description adds value by disclosing internal methods (setBoundVariableForPaint, setBoundVariable) and explaining the dynamic update behavior when the design token changes. This goes beyond the annotation.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy. It efficiently covers the primary behavior, categories, prerequisite, and outcome.

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 and absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the binding behavior, property categories, and dynamic updates. It could be improved by addressing error cases (e.g., invalid variable key) but overall is sufficiently complete.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds limited new meaning beyond the schema. It provides context for property categories (colors vs spacing) and references the prerequisite, but the core parameter semantics are fully covered by 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 ('import a library variable by key and bind it to a node property') and specifies the resource (node property). It distinguishes from sibling tools like figma_get_library_variables by explaining the prerequisite and from other variable manipulators by focusing on binding to properties.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Get variableKey from figma_get_library_variables') but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., figma_update_variable or directly setting properties). It implicitly suggests usage for binding design tokens to node properties, but lacks exclusion criteria.

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