figma_batch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses max operation count, node reference syntax, parent type restrictions, and supported command list. It also notes parameter aliases and batch variants. However, it does not mention error handling, atomicity, or partial success behavior, which would be valuable for a mutation-heavy batch 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 long but dense and well-structured. It front-loads the critical advantages (batch, max 200 ops, prefer over loops), then lists commands, followed by parameter signature details and an IMPORTANT parent-node caveat. Every sentence provides actionable information; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 high complexity (44+ commands), minimal schema, and no output schema, the description covers a lot: command list, key aliases, batch vs. single patterns, parent constraints, and $ref syntax. However, parameter semantics for many commands (e.g., set_fill, set_effects) are not individually documented, relying on 'param names must match plugin function signatures exactly' as a catch-all. This leaves gaps for less common commands.

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?

The input schema is minimal (only 'operations' with free-form command/params), and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates extensively by enumerating all valid commands and detailing parameter names, aliases, and specific signatures for many operations (e.g., create_text accepts 'content' or 'text', clone_node accepts offsetX/offsetY/newName). This is essential guidance beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: batching multiple create, modify, and variable operations in one round-trip, with a max of 200 ops. It distinguishes itself from the many individual sibling tools by explicitly stating 'ALWAYS prefer this over calling individual tools in a loop.' The verb 'batch' plus resource scope makes the purpose immediately clear.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: always prefer this tool over looping individual tools, use create_frame instead of create_rectangle when children are needed, and notes only FRAME, GROUP, COMPONENT, and PAGE nodes can be parents. It also provides command-specific batch patterns (e.g., set_text_content updates array) which guide correct usage.

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