figma_set_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds that this is a mutation ("set"), that style variants are auto-corrected and "fall back gracefully," and that {wght: 550} axes can be set—good detail. But "falls back gracefully" is vague (to what?), and it says nothing about return value, failure modes, or undoability.

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 with the core action, followed by optional-field notes and the fallback reassurance. The middle sentence about auto-correction is useful; the trailing "text can be left out" is the strongest signal and could be earlier, but the structure is sound 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?

For a 7-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this explains all functional parameters and the styling behavior sufficiently to call it correctly. The lone gap is behavioral around failure/response, which is minor for a simple text-setter.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces meaning with a conceptual anchor—"BALANCE or PRETTY, like CSS text-wrap"—and gives the concrete fontVariations example {wght: 550}, adding real semantic value over the raw schema for a non-obvious enum.

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?

"Set the text content of a text node" states a specific verb+resource, and the sentence names the alternative (raw figma_execute) explicitly. It stops just short of distinguishing from siblings like figma_add_text_to_slide, but the operation is unmistakable.

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?

"You don't need raw figma_execute to change typography" routes the agent away from the generic escape hatch, and "text can be left out to change only the styling" clarifies the conditional use case. No explicit exclusion of what this tool should NOT be used for, so not a 5.

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