Set properties like position, size, fill, text, and layout on a Figma scene node. Apply changes directly; inspect after errors and use Figma Undo to revert.
Set supported properties on one scene node. fill/stroke use #RRGGBB or null. Edits are not transactional; inspect after errors. Figma Undo is available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| props | Yes | ||
| nodeId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Edits are not transactional; inspect after errors' and 'Figma Undo is available.' This informs the agent about the lack of atomicity despite destructiveHint=true, and provides a fallback. However, it doesn't specify required permissions or whether partial updates are possible.
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?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, format clarification, and behavioral caveat. No redundancy or filler.
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 many nested parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential non-obvious aspects: fill/stroke format, non-transactional behavior, and undo availability. It omits details on whether all properties are optional, but the schema covers that via required array. It's largely complete for an agent to invoke correctly, though some parameter semantics (e.g., fontName, variableBindings) are not explained.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage across many nested properties, the description must compensate. It clarifies the fill/stroke format: '#RRGGBB or null.' This addresses a key ambiguity among many parameters, though most others (x, y, width, etc.) remain semantically clear from their names and schema constraints. Given the low coverage, a 4 reflects adequate but not exhaustive compensation.
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+resource: 'Set supported properties on one scene node.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_node, delete_node, or reparent_nodes. However, it does not fully differentiate from update_page, which is a similarly named update operation on a different resource.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like reparent_nodes, set_variable, or update_page. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.