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

Goes meaningfully beyond the annotations: it discloses that the font is loaded before any layer appears (partial-failure behavior), that the call returns the created node and revision, and that a timeout can produce a duplicate node. This is exactly the non-idempotent risk the idempotentHint=false annotation hints at but does not explain. It says nothing about permissions or failure modes other than timeout.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the atomicity guarantee, then inputs, return value, and the retry caveat. No filler; the only slightly wasteful phrasing is 'loaded before any layer appears' appearing in both the description and the fontName schema.

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 an 18-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the required path, states what is returned, and warns about the practical failure mode. What's missing is guidance on the optional typography and layout parameters, which leaves richer styling calls partly unspecified.

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 only 39% across 18 parameters. The description maps the eight required inputs well (connection, parent, name, text, font, size, x/y), but the ten optional styling params (letterSpacing, paragraphSpacing, textAutoResize, textAlignHorizontal, width/height, opacity, lineHeight) get no mention anywhere the agent will read, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create one text layer') and adds two distinguishing qualifiers: an exact local font and atomic font loading before any layer appears. It separates itself from the siblings implicitly (creation vs. 'edit'), though it never names figma_local_fonts_edit or figma_local_fonts_search directly.

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?

It spells out the input contract ('Supply the intended file connection, parent on the current page, name, text, font, size, and position') and gives a concrete retry rule: on timeout, inspect the parent before retrying to avoid duplicates. It stops short of explicitly saying when to use this versus figma_local_fonts_edit, which is only implied by 'for subsequent edits'.

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

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: all fonts and targets are validated before any write, writes are not atomic (a failure returns applied states), and the response identifies the failing node and unattempted IDs with retry guidance. Revision-based stale-write protection is also disclosed, which is exactly the risk context a destructive batch tool needs.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its size bound, then inputs, then validation, then failure handling. Every sentence carries distinct information with no 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the failure payload shape and retry path, and covers the required prior-inspection step. It never states explicitly that a successful partial application can also occur without an error, or how per-edit changes combine on one node, leaving a small gap for a complex nested batch schema.

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 50%; the description reinforces connectionId (from inspection) and revision (prevents stale edits) and states the 1–30 batch bound and uniqueness requirement. However, it lumps all mutable properties under 'requested changes' without enumerating them, so fields like lineHeight, letterSpacing, textAutoResize and textAlignHorizontal remain undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Edit ... text layers') and adds real scope detail: batch of 1–30, layers must already be 'inspected'. An agent can distinguish this from the create sibling, though it never names the alternative explicitly.

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?

Clear preconditions and context: layers must be 'inspected', connectionId and per-node revision come from 'local inspection', and the retry procedure is spelled out ('use those states before retrying'). No explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., 'use figma_local_fonts_create for new text layers'), so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds real semantics on top: the 30-layer cap, instance traversal, and the visibility rule that hidden layers are only reachable via explicit text IDs. Only the return shape details (beyond an enumerated list) are thin.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler, and the input modes are front-loaded before the return contents. Slightly compressed to the point of reading as a spec dump, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly tells the agent what comes back (font runs, visibility, dimensions, revisions). It omits any mention of the plugin connection prerequisite that connectionId encodes, which is the main remaining gap for a two-parameter read tool.

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%, so both nodeIds and connectionId are already documented in the schema, and the description's container-versus-text-ID sentence largely restates the nodeIds schema text. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (inspect) and resource (text nodes/containers) plus the two input modes (selection vs explicit IDs). It reads distinctly from siblings like figma_local_fonts_search and figma_local_fonts_edit, though it never names them to force the contrast.

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?

Gives clear routing within the tool: containers yield visible nested text, explicit text IDs can reach hidden layers. It doesn't say when to prefer search or edit instead, so the cross-tool guidance is implied rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: results are scoped to the fonts visible to the currently open Figma Desktop file, and output is 'bounded matches' rather than an unbounded dump. It does not state what happens with no connected file, or how many matches are returned at the default limit.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The search scope and resource come first, and the downstream purpose and return-value character follow immediately.

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?

With only three parameters, no output schema and annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly complete: it covers what is searched, the environment constraint, and the shape of the result (exact family/style names). A brief note on the empty-result or no-file-connected case would close the remaining gap.

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 67%: 'query' and 'connectionId' are described in the schema, and 'limit' carries bounds and a default even without a description. The description adds no semantics on top of the schema — no format hints, no explanation of how limit interacts with 'bounded matches' — so the schema is doing the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search fonts') plus scope ('available to the open Figma Desktop file by family or style'). The search/inspect/edit/create distinction is inferable from the tool name and the description's lookup framing, but the description never explicitly differentiates itself from the siblings figma_local_fonts_inspect or figma_local_fonts_status.

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?

'to use for an intentional font change' hints that this runs before an edit, and 'by family or style' indicates matching modes. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g. use inspect instead when you already know the exact family), so selection against the four sibling tools is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds that this is a prerequisite discovery step, but says nothing about what a 'connected file' looks like or how connections appear/disappear.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the purpose front-loaded and the call-ordering guidance immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place the agent could learn what the listing returns (file names? identifiers? font/connection state?). It establishes the discovery role but leaves the shape of the result — the thing the agent must feed into the inspect/edit tools — unspecified.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are required to enumerate connected files.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List connected Figma Desktop files'), which usefully disambiguates the opaque tool name figma_local_fonts_status. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling tools it precedes, but the file-listing scope is clear.

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?

'Call first to identify the target file before inspecting or editing local-font text' gives a concrete sequencing rule and names the downstream activities it enables. It doesn't address the search/create siblings or say when this call can be skipped.

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