figma-mcp-go

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

Strong supplement to annotations: explains exactly what 'destructive' means (the link to main component is broken) and what is preserved (all visual properties). Clarifies the mutation semantics beyond the annotations' destructiveHint=true without contradicting them.

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 tight sentences with zero waste. First sentence states the transformation (detach/convert), second clarifies behavioral implications (link broken/properties preserved). Front-loaded with the action and appropriately scoped.

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 single-parameter destructive operation. Explains the transformation outcome sufficiently despite lacking output schema. Minor gap: doesn't indicate return value (likely the new frame IDs) or error behavior for invalid instance IDs, though openWorldHint suggests external references are handled.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear description of nodeIds format. Tool description mentions 'one or more' which aligns with the array parameter, but adds no additional semantic details (e.g., what constitutes a valid INSTANCE ID) beyond the schema's example. Baseline 3 appropriate given schema completeness.

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?

Excellent specificity: 'Detach' (verb) + 'component instances' (resource) + 'converting them to plain frames' (outcome). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like swap_component (changes instance target) or delete_nodes (removes nodes) by emphasizing the conversion to plain frames while preserving visuals.

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?

Provides clear context about the operation's effect—breaking the link to main component while preserving visual properties—allowing the agent to infer this is for decoupling instances from their master. However, lacks explicit comparison to alternatives like swap_component or when NOT to use this (e.g., when you want to maintain component links).

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