figma-mcp-go

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true, but the description does not explain what these imply for this specific tool (e.g., that creation permanently modifies the document or that repeated calls create duplicate ellipses). It adds value only by specifying the placement hierarchy (page vs parent node).

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 of 12 words with zero redundancy. The action is front-loaded and every word serves a purpose. Appropriate length for the tool's simplicity.

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 a simple shape creation tool with complete schema coverage. However, lacking an output schema, the description should ideally mention what the tool returns (e.g., the created node ID or object) or confirm the side effects of creation implied by destructiveHint=true.

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 already fully documents all 7 parameters including defaults. The description mentions 'parent node' which maps to parentId, but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema for fillColor, dimensions, or positioning.

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 action (Create) and resource (ellipse/circle/oval) and distinguishes from siblings like create_rectangle or create_text by specifying the geometric shape. The parenthetical '(circle/oval)' helpfully clarifies the shape variant.

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 mentions placement options ('current page or inside a parent node') but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling creation tools like create_rectangle or create_frame. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are provided.

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