figma_set_opacity

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether children are affected), reversibility, permission requirements, or whether the opacity change is applied immediately. 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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. While it is terse, it is efficiently structured for a simple operation, though it lacks supporting details.

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 simple 2-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is still incomplete. It does not specify which node types support opacity, whether the operation is undoable, or how it interacts with fills/strokes. Given the many sibling tools, more context is needed for correct usage.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameter meaning. It adds no information about 'nodeId' (which node? what type?) or 'opacity' beyond the schema's min/max constraints. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Set node opacity' clearly states the action and target resource. It is a specific verb+resource pair, making the primary purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling mutation tools like set_visible or set_fill beyond the property name, which is inherent to the tool name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention whether it works on all node types, whether the node must be selected, or any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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