set_variant_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation ('Rename') but says nothing about required permissions, what happens to existing variant properties, whether values are validated against defined component properties, or whether the operation is reversible. The naming-format detail is the only extra context offered.

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 filler; the core action and the format requirement come first. It is efficient, though it is also short enough that the missing guidance wasn't trimmed so much as never written.

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, an undocumented nested object parameter, and 0% parameter descriptions, the definition is far too thin. An agent still cannot tell which identifier to pass or what a successful call changes about the component set.

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% for three parameters, and the description only loosely gestures at the 'properties' map via 'Property=Value'. The critical distinction between nodeId and componentId — which one to supply, whether one is required, and how they interact with 'properties' — is never explained, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a concrete verb and resource ('Rename a component') and adds the mechanism ('Figma's variant naming format (Property=Value, ...)'), so an agent can infer what will actually change. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like rename_node, bulk_rename, or set_instance_properties, which is why this falls 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rename_node, bulk_rename, or combine_as_variants, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the target must be a variant component). The only usage-adjacent content is the naming-format hint, which is syntactic rather than situational.

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