figma_boolean_operation

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

With no annotations, the description must reveal behavioral traits but does not. It fails to mention whether the operation is destructive, whether it creates a new node or modifies existing ones, what happens to the input shapes, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a boolean operation.

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 concise and front-loaded, using simple language. However, it is under-specified for a tool with nuanced behavior, so the brevity comes at the cost of clarity. It could be expanded slightly without being verbose.

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?

The tool involves non-trivial boolean operations, yet the description omits critical context such as node type requirements, result structure, and behavior specifics. The absence of an output schema and annotations further increases the burden on the description, which does not meet 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by listing operation values and mentioning '2+ nodes', but it does not explain the optional 'name' parameter or clarify semantics like ordering for SUBTRACT. The enum values are already in the schema, and the description adds little beyond that.

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 specifies the core action ('Boolean op') and lists the possible operations (union/subtract/intersect/exclude) with a requirement on '2+ nodes'. This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from grouping or other node-manipulation tools.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like figma_group_nodes or figma_move_node. The description implies a scenario (2+ nodes) but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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