figma_update_node

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

The description states the mutation nature (consistent with readOnlyHint=false) and specifies prerequisites like Phase 2 and DS validation for variable paths. It also notes that fill has fallback logic. No annotation contradiction; annotations are supported by the description.

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 well-structured: main purpose first, then ops in parentheses, then conditions via semicolons. It's moderately long but justified by the tool's complexity (30 params, 10 ops). No redundancy; each sentence adds value.

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 high complexity of the tool, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all operations, prerequisites, fallbacks, and even mentions the sibling tool for deletion. No output schema is present, so return values are not expected. The description leaves no critical gaps.

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?

All 30 parameters are already documented in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description's added value is primarily in grouping params by op and explaining their contextual use. This extra organization is helpful but not essential given the schema's quality.

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 mutates a Figma node or editor focus via an 'op' parameter. It enumerates all 10 operations with brief explanations, distinguishing this tool from sibling 'figma_delete_node' which is for removal. The verb 'mutates' and resource 'Figma node or UI focus' are specific and accurate.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: which ops require Phase 2, which do not (select/page), and when to use alternative tool 'figma_delete_node' for removal. It also explains fallback behavior for fill operations. This helps the agent select the correct operation and avoid misuse.

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