figma_set_annotations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that an empty array clears annotations, that mode='append' preserves existing annotations while 'replace' overwrites, that the Desktop Bridge plugin is required, and that the operation is undoable. It does not cover error cases or permission details, so it is not exhaustive.

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 reasonably front-loaded and nearly every sentence carries useful information. It is slightly long due to enumerating annotation use cases, but remains efficient overall.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and full schema coverage, the description provides enough context about behavior, requirements, and side effects to invoke the tool correctly. Minor gaps around error handling and return behavior are acceptable here.

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 parameters are already fully documented in structured data. The description reinforces the meaning of label, markdown, pinned properties, categories, and mode, but does not add syntax or edge-case semantics beyond what the schema provides, making a 3 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: 'Write or clear annotations on a Figma node.' It is immediately clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name the sibling read tools it complements.

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 clear usage context, explaining that annotations document animation timings, easing curves, interaction behaviors, accessibility requirements, and implementation notes. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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