Update multiple text nodes in a Figma node at once by providing each node ID with its replacement text, so bulk text changes can be applied in one call.
Set multiple text contents parallelly in a node
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Array of text node IDs and their replacement texts | |
| nodeId | Yes | The ID of the node containing the text nodes to replace |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that the operation sets multiple text contents 'parallelly', but does not state whether existing text is replaced, whether the node must contain text nodes, or whether the operation is atomic.
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 with no filler and the action verb is front-loaded. However, 'parallelly' is an awkward modifier and 'text contents' is imprecise, so it is concise but not maximally polished.
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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits how this tool relates to set_text_content, what 'parallelly' means in terms of execution, and any side effects or prerequisites, though the schema covers the parameter mechanics.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: 'parallelly' and 'in a node' hint at the relationship between the parent node and the array, but the schema already documents both parameters and their roles.
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 ('Set') and resource ('multiple text contents') and scopes the operation to 'a node'. The word 'multiple' differentiates it from the sibling set_text_content, though 'parallelly' is vague and 'text contents' is slightly ambiguous.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are stated. The term 'multiple' implies this is the batch counterpart to set_text_content, but the description never clarifies when to choose this over the singular tool or what types of nodes are valid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.