figma-mcp-go

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

The description states 'Create a new text node,' indicating an additive, non-destructive operation. This directly contradicts the destructiveHint: true annotation, which indicates the tool performs destructive operations like deletion or irreversible modification. This contradiction creates serious ambiguity about the tool's safety profile.

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 redundant words. It front-loads the action ('Create') and specifies the target resource ('text node') and location context immediately.

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 present annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not compensate for the missing output schema (does it return the node ID?), nor does it explain error conditions or side effects beyond the annotation contradiction.

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 score is 3. The description reinforces the parentId parameter by mentioning 'current page' and 'parent node' placement, but does not add semantic details beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., coordinate system details for x/y, or formatting behavior).

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 tool creates a new text node and specifies the location context ('current page or inside a parent node'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling creation tools like create_rectangle or create_frame, relying solely on the 'text' keyword in the name to distinguish the resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It fails to mention when to prefer create_text over set_text (which likely updates existing text nodes) or how to choose between creating different node types (text vs frame vs shape).

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