figma_apply_style

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the prerequisite of a plugin connection and the two input modes, but it does not disclose the mutation side effects (e.g., replacing or merging styles), failure behavior, or any permissions needed. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by brief usage instructions. Every sentence imparts useful information with no filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main usage pattern but omits important contextual details such as what constitutes a successful operation, error handling, or behavior when both styleId and styleName are provided. It is adequate as a minimum viable description but not comprehensive.

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 80%, so most parameters already have descriptive schema entries. The description adds value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity of styleId and styleName, but it does not elaborate on the required property parameter when using styleId. The schema already handles this, so the extra semantic contribution is limited.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Apply a style to a node by ID or by name.' This identifies the specific verb ('apply') and resource ('style to a node'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like figma_set_fill or figma_set_stroke, though the concept of applying a whole style is distinct.

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 description provides usage context by explaining the two mechanisms ('Provide styleId to apply by ID, or styleName to apply by name') and notes a prerequisite ('Requires plugin connection'). It does not mention when to avoid this tool in favor of alternatives or any exclusions, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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