figma_set_instance_properties

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

While the destructiveHint annotation indicates mutation, the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Set'. It does not mention side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or limitations, missing opportunities to inform the agent.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence fronts the core action, the second adds targeting info. Every word earns its place.

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 destructive nature, nested parameters, and lack of output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits crucial context like success/failure behavior, nodeId requirements (must be an instance?), properties structure, and operational constraints.

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 50% (figmaUrl and fileKey have descriptions; nodeId and properties lack them). The description lists property types, adding partial meaning for the 'properties' object, but nodeId remains undocumented. This meets the baseline but does not fully compensate for the gap.

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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'component instance properties', with a parenthetical listing property types (TEXT, BOOLEAN, VARIANT, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like figma_create_variable or figma_instantiate_component.

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 only advises to use fileKey or figmaUrl for targeting, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., figma_bind_variable for variable binding). No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are given.

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