figmad-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Create a text node', implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The mention of 'font customization and alignment' hints at capabilities but lacks operational context.

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 zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Create a text node in Figma') and adds useful detail ('Supports font customization and alignment') without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has 0 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does and hints at features, but for a mutation tool in a design context, it lacks details on error handling, return values, or integration with sibling tools. It's complete enough for basic understanding but has clear gaps.

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 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description adds value by mentioning 'font customization and alignment', which provides semantic context about what the tool can do beyond the bare 'create' action. This compensates well for the lack of 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 action ('Create a text node') and the platform ('in Figma'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_frame' or 'create_rectangle' by specifying text content. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what distinguishes it from other text-related tools (none listed in siblings), so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'font customization and alignment' as features, but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or when to choose this over other creation tools like 'create_frame'. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references.

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