set_text_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool modifies text content but omits key details such as whether it replaces existing text, preserves formatting, or handles invalid node IDs. No mention of side effects or mutability.

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 description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core action and target, fitting within the ideal length for such a simple tool.

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 straightforward mutation tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic action but lacks completeness in terms of error handling, return behavior, and assumptions (e.g., node must exist). It is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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 100% for both parameters (nodeId and text), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the purpose. No extra context is provided for parameter values or constraints.

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 clearly states the action 'set' and the resource 'text content of an existing text node in Figma'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_text' (which creates new nodes) and 'set_multiple_text_contents' (which sets multiple nodes at once).

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?

The description provides no usage guidelines. It does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_text' for new text or 'set_multiple_text_contents' for batch updates, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for appropriate use.

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