figma_set_effects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'apply effects' without revealing whether it overwrites existing effects, what node types are supported, or what the return value is. This is a significant gap 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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, containing zero wasted words. It is as concise as possible, though the brevity negatively impacts other dimensions.

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 has a complex schema with multiple effect types and properties, no annotations, and no output schema. The one-line description is grossly inadequate for an agent to understand the full behavior, such as whether effects replace existing ones, supported node types, or how to construct the effects array correctly.

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 for parameter semantics, but it provides none. It doesn't explain the structure of the 'effects' array, the meaning of nodeId, or any field details beyond what the schema already shows with its enums and required fields.

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 verb ('Apply') and resource ('effects (shadows, blurs)') on a node, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like figma_set_fill or figma_set_stroke. However, 'apply' is slightly ambiguous about whether it adds to or replaces existing effects, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 on when to use this tool instead of other set* tools, nor any prerequisites or edge cases. The description simply states what it does without any context or exclusions.

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