figma-mcp-go

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, establishing this is a state-mutating operation. The description adds valuable context that positioning is 'absolute' (not relative/delta), but does not explain the non-idempotent behavior (idempotentHint=false) or coordinate defaults when x/y are omitted.

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?

Single sentence, 10 words. Front-loaded with the action verb, zero redundancy, and every word earns its place. Perfect density for a straightforward transformation tool.

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?

While the core action is clear, the description fails to address the optional nature of x and y coordinates (only nodeIds is required), leaving ambiguity about default behavior or error conditions. For a destructive mutation tool with no output schema, this gap in parameter optionality explanation prevents a higher score.

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 coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context by specifying 'absolute position,' clarifying the coordinate system for the x and y parameters beyond the schema's generic 'Target X/Y position' labels. It also correctly implies nodeIds accepts multiple items ('one or more').

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 specific verb ('Move'), clear resource ('nodes'), and scope ('absolute position on the canvas'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like resize_nodes, clone_node, and group_nodes by specifying the absolute positioning 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 implies usage through 'absolute position' (indicating coordinate-based placement rather than relative), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like set_auto_layout or resize_nodes. It also omits what happens when optional x/y parameters are excluded.

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