figma-mcp-go

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable operational context beyond these annotations: specifically, the workflow recommendation to fetch current state via get_reactions before selective removal, and the behavioral distinction between omitting vs providing an empty array for 'remove all'.

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?

Three tightly constructed sentences with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose ('Remove prototype reactions...'), followed by usage patterns for bulk vs selective removal, and ends with actionable prerequisite. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a 2-parameter destructive mutation tool with 100% schema coverage and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics via workflow guidance, and operational prerequisites. No output schema exists requiring description.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds practical context about how to populate the 'indices' parameter (via get_reactions first) and reinforces the 'omit vs empty array' behavior for removing all items, providing usage semantics beyond raw schema definitions.

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?

Description opens with specific verb 'Remove' + resource 'prototype reactions' + target 'from a node'. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like set_reactions (which adds/modifies) and get_reactions (which reads), and from delete_nodes (which removes the node itself).

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?

Explicitly guides when to use which mode: 'Omit indices to remove all reactions' vs 'Provide a zero-based indices array to remove specific reactions'. Critically, it instructs to 'use get_reactions first to see current indices', establishing a clear workflow prerequisite with a sibling tool.

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