figma_batch_create_variables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the performance rationale and the Desktop Bridge dependency, but does not say whether partial failures are atomic, what happens on duplicate names, or what the operation returns. For a mutation tool this leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 core action and followed by the alternative, prerequisite, and dependency. Every sentence adds actionable information with no filler.

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?

The definition covers purpose, prerequisite, and plugin requirement, which is enough to attempt a call. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should say more about mutation behavior such as partial failure handling, duplicate handling, and what is returned (e.g., created variable IDs).

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 schema already documents the parameters, including per-variable fields, enum semantics, and value formats. The description adds a useful pointer for sourcing collectionId but no additional parameter-level meaning. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create multiple variables') plus scope ('in one operation') and explicitly distinguishes itself from figma_create_variable by naming it as the repeated-call alternative. An agent can select this over the single-create sibling without inspecting the schema.

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?

Explicitly says to use this instead of calling figma_create_variable repeatedly and gives a prerequisite: get collection IDs from figma_get_variables first. It also states the Desktop Bridge plugin requirement. It stops short of naming when not to use it (e.g., use figma_batch_update_variables for existing variables) or what to do above the bulk limit.

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