Edit Figma text with local fonts

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.