figma_set_description

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Set' implies mutation, and the mention of Dev Mode visibility adds useful context, but it does not say whether an existing description is overwritten, whether it needs an active plugin/file connection, or whether the change is reversible.

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 the action and targets, then supporting context. Efficient with minimal waste; the markdown note earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose and format support but omits overwrite semantics, permission/connection requirements, and confirmation of effect—gaps an agent would want before invoking it.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The line 'Supports plain text and markdown formatting' loosely maps to the description/descriptionMarkdown pair, but the description does not clarify how the two fields interact (precedence or mutual exclusivity) beyond what the schema states.

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 definition states a specific verb and resource ('Set the description text') and scopes it to three target types (component, component set, style), which lets an agent distinguish it from figma_set_annotations or figma_rename_node. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling/alternative it is not.

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 second sentence ('Descriptions appear in Dev Mode and help document design intent') gives implied context for why one would call it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus figma_set_annotations or figma_generate_component_doc, and no prerequisites (e.g., selecting a node) are stated.

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