figma-mcp-go

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

Annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-read-only operation. The description adds the critical behavioral constraint that nodes must share the same parent, and clarifies the output is a GROUP structure, though it could specify that nodes become nested children of the new group.

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 efficient sentences with zero waste: first establishes the action and result, second states the critical constraint. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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 good annotations and complete input schema, the description adequately covers the grouping operation and its primary constraint. It could be improved by describing the nesting behavior (that nodes become children of the new group) or error conditions.

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 schema fully documents both parameters including the colon format example and minimum count. The description reinforces the 'two or more' constraint but adds no new semantic information beyond the 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 states a specific verb ('Group'), target resource ('nodes'), and result ('into a GROUP'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like ungroup_nodes, move_nodes, or clone_node.

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 constraint 'All nodes must share the same parent' provides implicit usage guidance on prerequisites, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like create_frame or how it differs from ungroup_nodes.

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