figma-mcp-go

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, indicating this operation modifies or destroys state. The description 'Get all local styles' implies a safe retrieval, creating a severe mismatch. It adds no explanation of what gets destroyed or why this 'get' operation is destructive.

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 that front-loads the action. The colon-delimited list of style types provides dense information 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?

Given the surprising destructive annotation and lack of output schema, the description is dangerously incomplete. It fails to explain the side effects, return format, or safety considerations necessary for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema contains zero parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering parameters are available by stating 'all local styles', which aligns with the empty schema.

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 identifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('local styles'), and scope ('in the document'), including specific style types (paint, text, effect, grid). However, it fails to distinguish this from sibling 'get' tools (e.g., get_document, get_nodes_info) by not indicating its non-read behavior.

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 versus alternatives like create_*_style or delete_style. Critically, it fails to warn against using this when a safe read is expected, which is dangerous given the destructive annotations.

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