figma_add_component_property

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explains what properties are for (dynamic content in instances) and gives type semantics, but says nothing about whether adding a property mutates existing instances, whether the operation is reversible, what identifier comes back, or what error conditions are typical. That is a meaningful gap for an unannotated mutation tool.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose first, type catalogue second, the one caveat last. Nothing is padded and every clause carries 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?

For a 6-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, type selection, and the main alternative. It stops short of stating the return value (e.g. the new property key) and the effect on existing instances, which an agent would still want.

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%, including per-parameter notes like defaultValue requirements per type, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description's type list largely duplicates the `type` enum description verbatim, adding little beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Add a new component property to a component or component set') and then enumerates the supported property types with a plain-language gloss for each. An agent can tell this apart from figma_edit_component_property / figma_delete_component_property and is pointed at figma_create_slot for the slot case.

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 gives one explicit routing rule ('prefer figma_create_slot for new slots'), which is genuinely useful, but it never mentions figma_add_slot_property (a close sibling that also targets slots) or says when to use this tool versus edit/delete. Prerequisites — that nodeId must be an existing component or component set, that property names should be unique — are left implicit.

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