figma-mcp-go

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). The description adds valuable context that the style is 'local' (distinguishing from library styles) and clarifies the effect subtypes. However, it does not explain the implications of idempotentHint=false (duplicate creation) or openWorldHint=true, nor does it describe what gets returned.

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 with no wasted words. The parenthetical list of effect types is appropriately placed to clarify scope without redundancy. Every element 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 100% schema coverage and comprehensive annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose. However, with no output schema provided, the description should ideally mention what the tool returns (e.g., the created style ID) or confirm the side effects, which is absent.

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 input schema fully documents all 9 parameters including defaults and constraints (e.g., 'shadows only' caveats). The description mentions effect types that map to the 'type' parameter but adds no additional syntax or semantic details beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 ('Create') with a clear resource ('effect style') and specifies the scope ('local'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_paint_style and create_text_style by specifying 'effect' and listing the specific effect types (drop shadow, inner shadow, blur) in parentheses.

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 by listing the three effect types supported (drop shadow, inner shadow, blur), which helps agents understand when this tool is appropriate. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus create_paint_style or prerequisites for use.

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