apply_animation_style

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

The description discloses several behavioral traits beyond the sparse annotations: the operation is atomic and undoable when batched, returns an `appliedStyleId` that can be used to remove exactly that instance later, and is a Figma-Design-only beta feature. No contradiction with `readOnlyHint: false` or `destructiveHint: false`.

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 and every sentence earns its place: input source, config tuning, return/removal semantics, batch staggering, and platform limitation. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 tool with nested configuration and no output schema, the description covers input provenance, key config behavior, return shape, removal strategy, and atomic batching. It does not enumerate every config prop, but the schema covers those details, making the description complete enough for practical use.

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?

The schema already documents all parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds valuable meaning: it tells the caller to obtain `styleId` from `get_motion_styles`, explains `timelineOffset` as the stagger lever with `node index * step`, and summarizes `config` as duration, offset, and preset-specific props.

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 uses a specific verb ('Apply'), a specific resource ('a Figma Motion animation-style preset'), and a target ('a node'). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling `apply_style_to_node` by emphasizing Motion presets and referencing `get_motion_styles` as the source of style IDs.

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 gives clear guidance on sourcing `styleId` from `get_motion_styles` and explicitly instructs when to use `batch` for staggered entrances by increasing `timelineOffset`. It does not explicitly contrast with `apply_style_to_node` or `apply_manual_keyframe_track`, but the Motion-specific context is sufficient.

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