write_plugin_data

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

No annotations provided, so full burden on description. Discloses mutation via setPluginData/setSharedPluginData and delete behavior. However, does not explicitly state overwrite behavior or potential errors (e.g., missing node). Adequate but leaves some gaps.

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?

Very concise: two short paragraphs and two examples. Front-loaded with main action and key distinction. Every sentence adds value 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?

No output schema, but tool is a write operation so return value likely minimal. Covers both modes and deletion. Could mention that node must exist or that data is overwritten, but overall sufficient for common use.

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% coverage for all 4 parameters. Description adds meaning: explains namespace optionality for shared vs private, and value empty string for deletion. Examples demonstrate correct usage and parameter combinations.

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?

Description clearly states action: writing plugin data to a Figma node, distinguishes between private and shared based on namespace. Verb 'write' and resource 'plugin data' are specific. Sibling read_plugin_data implies this is the write counterpart.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use namespace (shared data) vs omit (private data), and how to delete a key with empty string. Examples illustrate common usage. Could mention prerequisite that node_id must exist, but not required.

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