figma-mcp-go

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

Annotations indicate this is a destructive, non-idempotent write operation, but the description adds no context about what makes it destructive or what side effects occur. It does not explain whether renaming breaks references, affects linked components, or if the change is reversible.

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?

While brief, the description is insufficiently informative for a destructive operation. The single phrase fails to front-load critical behavioral information (e.g., destructive nature, scope of impact) that would help an agent invoke the tool safely.

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 that this is a destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description should explain behavioral implications (e.g., 'changes the layer name displayed in the layers panel'). Currently, it provides only the minimal function identification despite the operational complexity implied by destructiveHint=true.

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 adequately documents both nodeId (including the colon format example) and name parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context, meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas.

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 'Rename a node' is a tautology that restates the tool name. While it identifies the resource (node) and action (rename), it fails to distinguish this tool from sibling operations like set_text, clone_node, or delete_nodes, all of which also operate on nodes.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify whether to use this versus set_text for text layers, or whether this affects the display name versus the layer name in the design tool.

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