figma-mcp-go

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

The description claims a read operation ('Get'), but the annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. This is a serious contradiction—the description fails to disclose what gets destroyed or modified during this seemingly read-only operation, or why it is non-idempotent.

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 key differentiator ('in a single call') is positioned at the end, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools without verbosity.

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?

Despite having only one parameter, the annotations indicate complex, dangerous behavior (destructive, non-idempotent, open-world) that the description completely ignores. For a tool marked destructive, the description must explain the side effects, which it fails to do.

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 parameter 'nodeIds' is fully documented in the schema including format examples. The description does not add param-specific details, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 retrieves 'detailed information about multiple Figma nodes' and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_node' (singular) by emphasizing 'multiple' and 'in a single call', indicating batch retrieval functionality.

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 phrase 'in a single call' implies the batching use case (efficiency for multiple lookups), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over 'get_node' or warn against using it for single nodes. No alternative tools are named.

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