figma_edit_component_property

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond what the schema already states. It never says whether edits are reversible, what happens if the property name or suffix doesn't match, whether a rename breaks existing instance overrides, or what errors surface — significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then capability, then the naming caveat. No wasted framing, though the middle sentence largely duplicates the newValue schema and could have been spent on a genuinely additive detail.

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 3-parameter mutation with a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose and the naming convention but omits failure modes, permission/connection requirements, and the effect of the edit on consuming instances. Adequate to attempt a call, insufficient to anticipate consequences.

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% and the schema already documents nodeId, propertyName (with a worked suffix example), and all newValue sub-fields including the INSTANCE_SWAP restriction. The description's notes on suffix format and INSTANCE_SWAP merely restate the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Edit an existing component property") and enumerates the editable aspects (name, default value, preferredValues), which maps directly to the nested newValue object. The word "existing" implicitly separates it from figma_add_component_property and figma_delete_component_property, but it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 INSTANCE_SWAP parenthetical and the "full property name including the unique suffix" instruction give operational context for correct invocation, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus adding or deleting a property, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., plugin connection, node must be a component/component set).

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