Set Figma Text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Replace' clearly indicates a mutating operation, and the fallback to selection is a useful behavioral detail. However, it fails to disclose failure modes (e.g., when no nodeId and no selection), irreversibility, or exact replacement semantics (full string vs partial).

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 sentence that leads with the action and includes the most important condition. It is concise without sacrificing necessary information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The tool appears simple, but the description omits key contextual details: what happens when neither nodeId nor a selection exists, the role of timeoutMs, and the return value (there is no output schema). It provides the core behavior but is incomplete for a tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds semantics only for nodeId (fallback to first selected node) and implicitly for text (the replacement string). The timeoutMs parameter is entirely unmentioned, leaving its purpose and acceptable values undocumented.

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 ('Replace') and a clear resource ('Figma text node'), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling read/create tools. It also adds a concrete detail about nodeId fallback, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 a clear usage hint: if nodeId is omitted, the first selected node is used. This implies when to rely on selection versus explicit node targeting. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as not using it for other node types.

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