Creates click navigation from a selected node to a destination frame, replacing existing source reactions to wire prototype interactions.
Set a click navigation from a node to a destination FRAME. Replaces source reactions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeId | Yes | ||
| destinationId | Yes | ||
| targetDocumentId | Yes | documentId returned by figma_document; protects against editing a different file. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a key behavioral trait: existing source reactions are replaced. This tells the agent what prior data is affected. It still omits permissions, error behavior, and return details, but the overwrite warning is substantive.
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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a critical side-effect warning. There is no filler or repetition.
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 three-parameter mutation with full annotations and no output schema, the description plus schema gives enough information to invoke the tool correctly. The main gaps are usage routing and failure-mode detail, which are minor for this simple operation.
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 33%: targetDocumentId is described, but nodeId and destinationId are undocumented. The description partially compensates by clarifying that the source is a node and the destination must be a FRAME, but it does not explain ID formats or the exact role of targetDocumentId.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Set a click navigation from a node to a destination FRAME.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from sibling tools such as figma_update_nodes or figma_create_nodes.
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 phrase 'Set a click navigation...' implies the intended use case, and 'Replaces source reactions' provides a caution about overwriting. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.