set_text_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation ('set text content') but does not mention side effects, such as whether it replaces all text or preserves formatting, what happens if the node is not a text node, or any permissions required.

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 with no superfluous words. It immediately conveys the verb and resource, making it highly scannable and efficient.

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 two-parameter mutation tool, the description is adequate but lacks details about failure modes, return values (no output schema), and prerequisites beyond 'existing'. It covers the core operation but leaves gaps that may require the agent to infer or experiment.

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?

Both schema parameters (text and nodeId) already have descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the action ('set text content') and the target ('existing text node in Figma'), which distinguishes it from creation tools like create_text and from bulk operations like set_multiple_text_contents.

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 phrase 'existing text node' implies the tool is for modifying existing nodes, not creating new ones, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., for multiple nodes use set_multiple_text_contents). Usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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