set_text_style

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it does not say what existing styling gets overwritten, whether the node must already be a TEXT node, what permissions are needed, or what errors occur. It only adds minor behavioral context (that textStyleId applies a pre-existing style), leaving the mutation profile largely undisclosed.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good, but the remainder is a single run-on sentence that strings all 26 parameters together without grouping or structure, making it hard to scan despite being information-dense.

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 26-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description does cover most parameter values, but it omits the when-to-use framing and the mutation/override behavior an agent needs. It is adequate on the parameter front but incomplete on operational context.

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 only 23%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it enumerates allowed values for textAlignHorizontal, textAlignVertical, textAutoResize, textWrapStyle, textTruncation, layoutSizing, gives lineHeight/letterSpacing format options (number|'AUTO'|{unit,value}), and a variationSettings example. A few params (boundVariables, fills, fillStyleId) are named but not explained, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 (apply) and resource (text style / fine-grained typography) scoped to a TEXT node, which is concrete and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling apply_text_style, even though both appear to apply existing styles, leaving the agent to infer which to pick.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling alternatives (apply_text_style, figma_set_text, set_text_content). The only hint is 'Pass textStyleId to apply an existing style', which is parameter usage rather than tool-selection guidance.

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