figma_set_slide_transition

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuine behavioral fact (the transition advances on click by default) and implies mutation, but it says nothing about whether this mutates only the targeted slide, whether transitions persist to the file, how to remove one, or whether the call can fail. That is partial coverage for a write tool with zero annotation support.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its configurable dimensions, and the default trigger clause placed last. No filler or repetition of schema 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 simple four-parameter setter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the basics are covered. But with no annotations and many sibling tools touching slides and animations, the description should have covered mutation scope, how to clear a transition, and its relationship to animation-style tools.

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 all four parameters, their enums, defaults, and the 0.01–10 second duration range are already documented. The description's parenthetical mirrors the schema without adding semantics, and notably omits any mention of slideId or of style=NONE as the removal path.

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 (set the transition effect for a slide) and enumerates the controllable aspects (style, duration, easing curve). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the direct counterpart figma_get_slide_transition or from figma_manage_animation_styles / figma_apply_animation, which an agent could easily confuse with slide transitions.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives. The only extra clause, 'Triggers on click by default,' describes runtime behavior rather than selection criteria, so the agent gets no help choosing between this tool, figma_manage_animation_styles, and figma_apply_animation.

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