apply_variable_to_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the binding action but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting, reversibility), prerequisites (variable must exist), or error scenarios, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides a key usage guideline. No unnecessary words, front-loaded, and easy to parse.

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?

While the description covers the core action and usage pattern, it lacks details about error handling, prerequisites (e.g., variable existence), return values (no output schema), and potential side effects, which would be expected for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters, but the description adds value by explaining the 'field' parameter with examples and the per-field calling pattern, which clarifies the intended usage beyond 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 tool's purpose: binding a variable to a node property in Figma. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'set_variable' by emphasizing the binding action and the per-field usage pattern.

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 usage guideline: 'Call once per field — for multiple fields, call multiple times.' This indicates when to use and how to batch calls, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'set_variable'.

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