set_image_fill_from_path

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

With destructiveHint=true already declared, the description adds real context the annotations cannot: the file is read locally, validated by binary signature, and sent only to the open Figma file (no remote upload). It omits that the operation replaces any existing fill on the node, which is the main destructive consequence.

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 zero filler, front-loading the action and formats before the security/privacy context. Nothing is redundant with the tool name or annotations.

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 mutating, no-output-schema tool, the import mechanics and privacy guarantees are covered, but the definition leaves the scaleMode options unexplained and does not warn that the existing node fill is overwritten. An agent can call it, but not confidently or optimally.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only indirectly covers imagePath (accepted formats). nodeId is never mentioned and scaleMode with its FILL/FIT/CROP/TILE enum is entirely unaddressed, leaving two of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 and resource: importing a local image file into a node fill, and names the supported formats (PNG, JPEG, GIF, WebP). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling set_image_fill, which an agent must choose between based on source type (path vs. bytes/URL).

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'a local PNG, JPEG, GIF or WebP file' and 'read only on this computer', which hints that this is the path-based variant. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over set_image_fill, nor any prerequisite about the node already existing or being an image-capable node.

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