figma-mcp-go

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

The description does not contradict annotations (destructiveHint=true aligns with 'Resize'). It adds valuable behavioral context that partial updates are supported (width OR height), which annotations don't convey. However, it omits whether aspect ratio is preserved, how constraints are handled, or the idempotentHint=false implications.

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 consists of two high-density sentences with zero redundancy. It front-loads the action in the first sentence and immediately follows with the critical usage pattern (optional dimensions) in the second. No words are wasted.

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 100% schema coverage and explicit annotations covering safety/destructive traits, the description adequately covers the core contract. However, for a design tool resize operation, it should mention whether aspect ratio is locked or how the resize affects nested content, which are common failure modes.

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 already documents the colon-format nodeIds and pixel dimensions. The description adds semantic value by clarifying that width and height are independently optional ('or both'), reinforcing the schema's required/optional structure.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resize') with a clear resource ('nodes') and scope ('one or more'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'move_nodes', 'clone_node', and 'set_corner_radius' by specifying dimensional scaling rather than position, duplication, or styling.

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 second sentence ('Provide width, height, or both') implies parameter optionality, suggesting partial resizes are supported. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus scaling tools, when to avoid it (e.g., for locked components), or prerequisites (e.g., valid node IDs).

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