figma_component_text

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

Annotations already mark the tool as idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds context about batch processing ('saves N-1 tool calls'), precedence of textNodeId over textNodeName, and the requirement for Phase 2, providing useful behavioral clues beyond the annotations.

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 highly concise, packing purpose, usage, and parameter details into a few sentences. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently adds context without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of detailed schema annotations, the description covers essential aspects: usage flow, parameter selection, and efficiency benefits. It could mention error handling or limits, but the provided context is sufficient for an AI agent to use the tool 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%, and the description enriches understanding by explaining the overrides array structure, the distinction between textNodeName (by name) and textNodeId (exact match), and the role of configurationHints.textNodes. This adds significant value beyond the raw schema.

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 it overrides text on a component instance, with specific details on usage after figma_insert_component and differentiation between textNodeName and textNodeId. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like figma_update_node by focusing on text overrides in bulk.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool (after figma_insert_component, leveraging configurationHints.textNodes) and how to choose between textNodeName and textNodeId. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios but offers sufficient 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.