apply_fill_style

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does very little: it does not say whether existing fills are replaced or appended, whether the style must be local/imported, what permissions are needed, or whether the change is undoable. 'Apply' implies mutation but nothing is disclosed about its effects.

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 zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent lacks the information needed to invoke it correctly or to anticipate side effects.

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 0% and both parameters (nodeId, styleId) are undocumented in the schema. The description loosely maps them to 'node' and 'paint style', but adds no format, ID scheme, or constraint details, so it does not compensate for the coverage 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 states a specific verb (apply), resource (paint style), and target (a node's fills), which is enough to distinguish it from apply_stroke_style, apply_text_style, and apply_effect_style. It does not, however, explicitly name any sibling or note the difference from the generic set_fill_color.

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?

There is no guidance on when to apply a style versus setting a fill directly (set_fill_color / figma_set_solid_fill), nor any prerequisite such as the style needing to exist locally or be imported first. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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