figma_manage_animation_styles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that delete removes the style and remove_entry drops a single entry, and that durations/easings can bind to variables — useful behavioral context. However, it never states whether deletion is reversible, what happens to nodes already using a deleted style, or what the list/create calls return (no output schema exists to fill that gap).

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by one-line-per-action bullets, then a single line on the sibling tool to use for applying styles. No filler, and structure mirrors the action enum so it is easy to scan.

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 six-action mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what each action does, the entry structure, and how to apply the result. The remaining gap is return-value shape (e.g. what list yields for entryId/styleId), which the agent must infer, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 71%, so the schema already documents most fields. The description adds real value beyond it: entries are explained as preset+duration+offset+easing+props, variable binding of TIMING/EASING is called out, and 'entryId from list' establishes the dependency between list output and remove_entry input. The mismatch between 'offset' in the description and 'timelineOffset' in the schema is a minor imprecision.

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 names a precise verb+resource (reusable Motion animation styles) and then enumerates every action with a concrete definition of what each does. The closing line routes style application to figma_apply_animation, so an agent can separate this tool from figma_get_animations and figma_apply_animation without opening a 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?

The per-action bullets effectively map intent to action (list_presets for built-in defaults, list for local styles, create/update/remove_entry/delete), and the last line explicitly names the alternative tool for applying a style. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance versus figma_get_styles or figma_get_animations, but the action map gives clear selection context.

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