figma_setup_overlay

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation (configuring a frame) but does not state side effects, whether existing prototype settings are overwritten, or any requirements like the frame being part of a prototype. This is too vague for an agent to anticipate consequences.

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 with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It lacks the detail needed to be truly concise; it is more terse than informative.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far from complete. It fails to explain the purpose of each parameter, the behavior of the overlay configuration, or how it fits into the prototyping workflow.

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 description offers zero parameter information, and schema description coverage is 0%. It does not explain what nodeId refers to, nor the meaning of overlayBackground, overlayBackgroundColor, or overlayBackgroundInteraction. The agent must infer everything from the schema alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 ('configure') and the resource ('a frame as an overlay in prototypes'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like figma_create_interaction. However, it could be more specific about which overlay properties are configured (e.g., background, interaction).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as figma_create_interaction or figma_set_default_transition. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context cues to help the agent decide.

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