figma_set_fill

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only provides input examples. It omits critical behavior such as whether calling this replaces existing fills on the node, any required permissions, or potential side effects. The 'set' verb implies replacement but this is not stated.

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 well-structured: a clear opening statement followed by four short example snippets. Each line serves a purpose, and the format makes it easy to scan and understand.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out important context: it does not state what response to expect (e.g., success/failure), whether existing fills are replaced, or any prerequisites (e.g., node must be a frame). The examples cover input shapes but not the full context needed for safe invocation.

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 67%, leaving some parameters under-documented. The description compensates with concrete examples for solid, gradient, and image fills, clarifying complex structures like gradientStops and imageUrl. It also explicitly mentions that the fills array can contain multiple items.

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 'Set fill of a node' and lists supported fill types (solid, gradients, images). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like figma_set_stroke and figma_set_opacity.

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?

Examples imply usage for setting fills on nodes, and differentiate from other set_* tools by focusing on fill. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, when-not-to-use, or mention of alternatives beyond the existence of sibling tools.

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