figmad-mcp

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 states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects on other nodes, or rate limits. The mention of 'position, size, text, visibility, and more' hints at scope but lacks depth on behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the core purpose, and the second adds useful detail without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently, with no wasted words.

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's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and some updatable properties but lacks details on behavior, error handling, or return values. For a mutation tool in a design context, more guidance on permissions or side effects would improve completeness.

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, meaning no parameters are defined. The description compensates by listing example properties that can be updated ('position, size, text, visibility, and more'), which adds semantic context beyond the empty schema. However, it doesn't specify the exact parameter names or formats, so it's not fully comprehensive.

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 properties of an existing Figma node' with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('Figma node'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_frame' or 'delete_node' by focusing on modification of existing nodes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'set_fills' which might also modify node properties, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing node ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'set_fills' for specific property updates. The phrase 'and more' is vague and doesn't help the agent choose between this and other modification tools.

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