Create a slot inside a component variant, automatically generating its matching SLOT property to enable flexible variant content.
Create a slot inside a component variant. This also creates the corresponding SLOT property.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| nodeId | No | ||
| componentId | No | ||
| componentSetId | No | ||
| variantComponentId | 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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one important side effect – creation of the corresponding SLOT property – which is genuinely useful. But it says nothing about required permissions, whether the parent must already be a component variant, or what fails if componentId/componentSetId/variantComponentId are missing.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. Efficient, though the brevity is partly the problem – it's concise at the cost of under-specification.
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?
A 9-parameter mutation tool with zero required-parameter markers, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema. The description explains the core action and one side effect but leaves the agent unable to know which IDs to supply or how params map to slot geometry. Inadequate for the complexity.
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?
Nine parameters at 0% schema description coverage and no description-level explanation of any of them. The description doesn't say what x/y/width/height mean (slot placement size vs position?), how name relates to the SLOT property, or which of nodeId/componentId/componentSetId/variantComponentId is authoritative. This is the largest gap in the definition.
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+resource: 'Create a slot inside a component variant.' Clear what the tool does, and siblings like edit_component_slot/delete_component_slot clarify the create-vs-edit distinction. Minor gap: 'slot' is Figma-domain jargon and the relationship to component vs componentSet is not spelled out.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of how this differs from edit_component_slot or how it interacts with create_component/combine_as_variants. The side-effect note is informational, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.