edit_component_slot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real side effect beyond the schema – that Figma syncs the SLOT property name with the slot node name on rename. However, it omits mutation semantics such as whether omitted properties are left untouched, permission requirements, and behavior on an invalid slotNodeId.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the name-sync caveat immediately after. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 should do more. It covers the action and one side effect but leaves coordinate semantics and partial-update behavior unexplained, which are the details an agent most needs.

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% across 6 parameters, and the description only loosely maps its verbs to fields (name, width/height, x/y). It does not clarify whether x/y are absolute or relative to the component/parent, nor units for width/height, leaving the coordinate parameters ambiguous.

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 gives specific verbs (rename, resize, reposition) and a precise resource ('an existing SLOT node inside a component'), which separates it from create_component_slot and delete_component_slot. It does not explicitly name siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Implied usage only: the word 'existing' signals this is for modifying a slot rather than creating or deleting one, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The agent must infer routing from the verb.

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