figma_swap_main_component

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool directly changes the variant and bypasses setProperties, which goes beyond annotations. Still, it omits details like whether existing instance properties are preserved or if the operation is reversible.

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 two sentences: first sentence states the action and mechanism, second provides a usage hint. No redundant words, front-loaded with the key purpose.

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 tool with annotations covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description is largely complete. However, it does not mention the return value or side effects (e.g., what happens to overridden properties), which would be helpful.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both nodeId and componentKey, so the schema already explains parameters. The description adds 'by key' which matches the schema, but no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'Swap', the resource 'main component of an INSTANCE node', and specifies it works by component key, distinguishing it from siblings like figma_replace_component and figma_set_variant. It also explicitly mentions bypassing setProperties, adding precision.

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 tells the agent to first call figma_get_component_variants to find available variant keys, providing a clear prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternative tools like figma_replace_component.

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