figma-mcp-go

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

Annotations indicate destructive=true, but the description adds valuable specificity with 'replaced in place,' clarifying that the transformation happens at the same location in the hierarchy rather than deletion/creation elsewhere. It could improve by stating whether child nodes are preserved or if the nodeId changes.

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?

Two sentences with zero redundancy: the first defines the operation (convert to component) and the second clarifies the replacement mechanism (in place). Information is front-loaded and 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?

For a destructive conversion operation with no output schema, the description adequately explains the user-visible transformation but omits critical details like what is returned (the new component node?), whether the original nodeId remains valid, or what happens to attached styles and children.

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 coverage, the schema already documents that nodeId expects a 'FRAME node ID' and that name defaults to the frame's current name. The description reinforces the FRAME requirement but adds no additional syntax, format, or semantic constraints beyond 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 states a specific action ('Convert') transforming a specific resource type ('FRAME node') into a specific output ('reusable COMPONENT'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_frame (which creates new containers) by emphasizing conversion of existing frames.

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 specifying 'existing FRAME node,' suggesting this requires a pre-existing frame. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus create_frame or clone_node, and doesn't state limitations (e.g., cannot convert non-frame nodes).

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