Batch create or update multiple Figma annotations in one call, applying markdown labels and categories to specified nodes to streamline bulk design documentation.
Batch create/update multiple annotations efficiently.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| annotations | 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/update' implies an upsert mutation, but it says nothing about whether existing annotations are overwritten, what happens for an unknown nodeId, permission requirements, or failure/partial-success behavior for a batch operation.
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 short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise; the brevity comes at the cost of missing the information an agent needs.
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 batch mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits the required nodeId/labelMarkdown structure, upsert semantics, and result/error behavior for partial batches.
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% and the single array parameter's nested fields (nodeId, categoryId, properties, labelMarkdown) are entirely undocumented. The description adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond the bare parameter name, leaving the agent to infer semantics from the schema shape alone.
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 (annotations) and the batch nature ('multiple'), which does distinguish it somewhat from the sibling set_annotation. However, it never names set_annotation or get_annotations explicitly, so the differentiation relies on the reader inferring it from the plural.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the singular set_annotation alternative, and no conditions or prerequisites. 'Efficiently' implies a batch use case but gives no concrete trigger for choosing this over per-annotation calls.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.