figma-mcp-go

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

Annotations cover safety (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying 'linking' (creating a reference relationship rather than embedding values), but omits what happens to existing node properties (e.g., whether direct fills are removed when a paint style is applied).

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, efficient sentence (16 words) with zero redundancy. It front-loads the action verb, immediately qualifies the resource type, and ends with the critical behavioral detail ('linking'), making every word essential.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with complete annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate conceptual coverage. It could be improved by noting whether applying a style replaces or merges with existing properties, but this is a minor gap given the richness of structured data.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all three parameters including the colon format for nodeId and the constraint that 'target' applies only to paint styles. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the baseline, but none are needed given the comprehensive schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('local style'), enumerates the supported style types (paint, text, effect, grid), and distinguishes from siblings like set_fills and create_*_style by emphasizing 'existing' and 'linking' semantics.

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 prerequisites by stating 'existing local style,' suggesting the style must be retrieved first (likely via get_styles). However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like set_fills/set_strokes or warnings about the destructive replacement of direct properties.

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