Create a local Figma variable collection to organize design tokens, with optional names for each mode. Use it to set up variables before editing or querying them.
Create a local variable collection, optionally naming modes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| modes | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only reveals that the collection is 'local' and that modes may be named. It says nothing about persistence scope, whether duplicates are allowed, permissions required, or what is returned.
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 waste. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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 zero parameter documentation, the description is too thin. An agent lacks enough to call it correctly in edge cases such as naming collisions or empty modes.
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%, so the description must compensate. It only implies that 'modes' is optional and that 'name' labels the collection; it gives no format, uniqueness, or ordering semantics for either parameter.
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 variable collection) and adds the scoping detail 'local'. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling set (list/rename/delete_variable_collection), though it does not name them.
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, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The agent must infer that this is the creation step preceding create_variable_mode and create_variable from sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.