figma_set_text_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful detail about batch support and aliases, but it does not disclose whether the entire text is replaced, what happens with multiple updates, whether special permissions are needed, or any error/edge-case behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 two short sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. It conveys key information (single vs. batch, alias handling) without any filler, earning its place efficiently.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain behavior, return values, and parameter relationships. It fails to clarify that nodeId is technically optional at the top level (for single updates) but required inside each updates item, nor does it state what the tool returns or how batches behave on partial failure. The description is adequate only for a very simple mental model, leaving important gaps for an AI agent.

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 50%, with text and content having descriptions, but nodeId and updates having none. The description compensates somewhat by explaining the 'text'/'content' alias and noting that batch updates are via the updates array, but it does not clarify nodeId's role or the structure of updates beyond the schema. The added value moves it above baseline but not enough to fully cover the missing schema info.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update text content.' The verb 'update' plus the resource 'text content' makes the action specific. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like figma_set_text_style and figma_create_text by focusing on content modification, and mentions batch capability via the updates array.

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 implies usage when you need to set text on an existing node, and mentions batch support, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like figma_set_text_style or state when not to use this tool. There is no 'when-to-use' or 'use instead of' guidance, relying on the reader to infer from the name.

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