figma_set_instance_overrides

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It only repeats the action name and adds no behavioral details such as merge vs replace semantics, idempotency, error conditions, or whether it requires an existing instance. This provides little transparency beyond what the name implies.

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 short sentence, but it is under-specified and largely restates the tool's name. It lacks the detail needed to be practical. While not verbose, it does not earn its place because it conveys minimal added information.

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 complexity (nested object parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention return values, error behavior, how overrides should be structured, or any constraints. It is inadequate for an agent to invoke this tool correctly without additional inference.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameter. The 'overrides' parameter is a loosely-typed object with no property definitions, making its structure opaque. The description offers no clues about how to format overrides, what targetNodeIds refer to, or the relationship between the two parameters.

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 primary action (Apply overrides) and the target resource (component instances). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool figma_get_instance_overrides, though not explicitly. The verb and resource are specific enough for basic understanding.

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 usage context is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only implicit signal is the sibling get_instance_overrides, which is not referenced.

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