figma_set_text_style

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 does disclose the key override rule: 'Any explicit property overrides the preset.' However, it does not mention the operation's mutating nature, possible error conditions, or what happens when only nodeId is provided without any style properties. Thus, it adds some value but not comprehensive transparency.

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 front-loaded with the main action. The presets list and examples are directly useful, though the presets list duplicates the schema enum. Overall, every sentence earns its place with minimal redundancy.

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?

This tool has 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is thin on broader context. It does not mention that the node must be a text node, what the tool returns on success, or error behaviors. The examples are helpful but insufficient for fully understanding the tool's behavior in all usage scenarios.

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 only 18% (preset and fillColor have descriptions). The description compensates somewhat by explaining the preset-override interaction and providing examples for fontSize and fontWeight. However, it does not clarify units or allowed values for custom properties like fontSize or lineHeight, leaving many parameters underdocumented.

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 action and resource: 'Set text style with presets or custom values.' It includes a list of presets and usage examples that clarify the intended functionality. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like figma_set_text_content, which would make the differentiation even stronger.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it is for setting text style, but does not mention exclusions or refer to siblings such as figma_set_text_content for content changes. Given the large sibling list, the lack of usage direction is a significant gap.

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