set_selection_colors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions 'recursively change all stroke and fill colors' but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive (overwriting gradients or images), any required permissions, or potential side effects. The behavioral disclosure is minimal beyond the basic action.

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 two short sentences, highly concise, with no unnecessary words. The key information (recursive, stroke+fill, Figma feature) is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (recursive color change on all descendants) and absence of an output schema, the description provides the core functionality and a use case but leaves gaps: behavior with non-vector nodes, handling of existing color effects, and result confirmation. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., nodeId is 'typically an icon instance'), but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. The parameters are well-defined in 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 (recursively change all stroke and fill colors) and the resource (a node and all its descendants). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_fill_color or set_stroke_color by specifying recursive behavior and referencing Figma's 'Selection colors' feature.

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 explicitly mentions it's 'perfect for recolorizing icon instances', giving a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like set_fill_color for single-node changes. The context is clear but lacks exclusion guidance.

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