Document design intent by creating or updating markdown annotations on Figma nodes for clear, contextual feedback.
Create or update an annotation with markdown support.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeId | Yes | ||
| categoryId | No | ||
| properties | No | ||
| labelMarkdown | Yes |
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 burden. "Create or update" usefully signals upsert semantics, but it says nothing about what happens to the annotation's other fields on update, whether nodeId must already exist, or whether the operation is destructive to prior annotations. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.
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 efficiently stated, though its brevity leaves room the definition should have filled elsewhere.
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?
With 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the definition should explain far more than it does. An agent lacks what it needs to supply a valid categoryId or properties payload or to know what the 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 4 parameters. The description only adds meaning for one of them (labelMarkdown supports markdown); nodeId, categoryId, and properties are entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving the agent to guess their formats and roles.
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 (create/update) and resource (annotation), and "markdown support" hints at the label format. It reasonably distinguishes itself from the read-only get_annotations and the plural set_multiple_annotations, though it never names either sibling explicitly.
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 at all. The agent must infer from the name alone whether to use this versus set_multiple_annotations for a batch, or get_annotations for reading. No prerequisites or conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.