figma-mcp-go

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable context about optional repositioning and reparenting capabilities, but fails to clarify behavioral implications like whether child nodes are recursively cloned, what ID is returned, or the side effects of multiple invocations.

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?

Single sentence with optimal structure: main action ('Clone an existing node') front-loaded, followed by optional modifiers ('optionally repositioning...'). No redundant words or tautology.

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?

Adequate for basic operation but gaps remain regarding clone depth (children? styles? overrides?), return value structure, and how the new node relates to the original. Given destructive annotations and no output schema, more behavioral context would strengthen the definition.

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 baseline is 3. The description maps concepts ('repositioning' to x/y, 'new parent' to parentId) providing semantic grouping, but doesn't add syntax details, validation constraints, or examples beyond what's in the 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 specific verb 'Clone' with clear resource 'node', and distinguishes from sibling create_* tools by emphasizing 'existing node'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'create_component' or 'move_nodes'.

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 usage through 'optionally repositioning' and 'new parent' but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer cloning over creating new nodes, nor does it mention prerequisites like source node visibility or permissions.

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