figma_update_nodes

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

The annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds important context beyond that: partial writes may occur and are reported on errors, so the agent should inspect before retrying. It does not cover permissions or merge semantics, but it discloses the key mutation risk.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the action first, then explains the critical updatesJson format and error-handling caution. Every sentence contributes useful information with no waste.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential input format and the partial-write retry behavior. It could further clarify whether updates merge or replace existing properties and what permissions are needed, but it is largely complete for correct invocation.

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 schema describes pageId and targetDocumentId, and the description compensates for updatesJson's missing schema description by defining it as an array of {nodeId,props} and noting that props reuse create_nodes' editable properties without type/children. It defers the full property list to create_nodes, which is reasonable but not exhaustive.

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: "Update layers." It references create_nodes to clarify the editable properties and excludes type/children, making the update scope clearer. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like delete_nodes, but the purpose 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?

Usage is implied: this tool updates existing layers and should be used with updatesJson rather than creation or deletion. The retry caution gives operational guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use or direct sibling routing.

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