set_selections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the primary action (setting selection) and the side effect (scrolling the viewport). However, it does not explicitly state that the selection replaces the existing one, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., nodes must be on the same page). The scroll behavior is a useful disclosure beyond the name.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates both the action and a key side effect. Every word is informative with no redundancy.

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 simple tool with one fully-documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a relevant side effect. It could be improved by explicitly mentioning that the selection replaces the previous one, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter nodeIds, and the description's 'multiple nodes' aligns with the array type. The description does not add any additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('set') and resource ('selection to multiple nodes in Figma'), and adds a distinct behavior ('scroll viewport to show them'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from read-only siblings like get_selection and other selection-related tools like set_focus.

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 gives clear context that this is for selecting multiple nodes and bringing them into view. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the presence of get_selection and other setter tools implies this is the setter for multi-selection. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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