Add BOOLEAN, TEXT, INSTANCE_SWAP, or VARIANT properties to Figma components or component sets so designers can create configurable variants and overrides.
Add a BOOLEAN, TEXT, INSTANCE_SWAP, or VARIANT property to a component or component set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| type | Yes | ||
| nodeId | No | ||
| componentId | No | ||
| defaultValue | No | ||
| componentSetId | No | ||
| preferredValues | No | ||
| preferComponentSet | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool, yet it says nothing about permissions, whether the property is immediately effective, what happens when a name collides with an existing property, or the consequences of defaultValue/preferredValues. It discloses only the accepted value types, which is surface-level information.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and the enumerated property types come first. It is appropriately sized for a sentence, though the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine how to select the target (nodeId vs componentId vs componentSetId), what preferredValues or preferComponentSet do, or what a successful call returns.
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 description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It names the four `type` values but leaves name, nodeId, componentId, componentSetId, defaultValue, preferredValues, and preferComponentSet completely unexplained, including the critical question of which identifier targets a component versus a component set.
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?
States a specific verb (Add) and resource (a component property) and enumerates the four supported property types, which an agent can map directly to the `type` enum. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutators like edit_component_property and delete_component_property by the 'Add' action, though it never names those alternatives.
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 phrase 'to a component or component set' hints at the target, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus edit_component_property, bind_component_property, or set_variant_properties, and no prerequisites or ordering constraints are given. An agent gets no help choosing among the several property-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.