figma-mcp-go

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

While annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the description does not explain what makes this destructive (e.g., potential name collisions, overwriting existing styles) or what side effects occur beyond the return value. The addition of 'local' provides minimal scope context but fails to elaborate on the mutation's impact or persistence model.

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 single six-word sentence is efficiently structured with no redundancy, immediately stating the core operation. However, it errs on the side of under-specification for a 10-parameter destructive tool, leaving substantial room for additional clarifying information without sacrificing clarity.

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 complex creative tool with numerous typography parameters and destructive annotations, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the return behavior (no output schema exists), the scope of 'local' styles within the document hierarchy, or how this integrates with the broader design system workflow suggested by sibling tools like export_tokens.

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 structured data already documents all 10 parameters including defaults and formats. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, syntax examples, or interaction notes (e.g., how letterSpacingUnit affects letterSpacingValue), warranting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.

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 provides a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('text style'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_paint_style or create_effect_style. However, it leaves the term 'local' unexplained, which could clarify scope (document-level vs. shared library) to better differentiate from potential team library alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apply_style_to_node (for direct application) or how it relates to delete_style. There are no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., requiring an active document) and no exclusions or failure modes described.

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