figma-mcp-go

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

Annotations already declare this is destructive and not read-only. The description adds the '(flex)' terminology to contextualize the auto-layout concept but does not elaborate on partial update semantics (only nodeId is required), error conditions for invalid node types, or side effects on child nodes.

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 with zero waste. Front-loaded with action verb and immediately identifies the operation scope. No redundant phrases or filler content.

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 high schema coverage and presence of annotations, the description doesn't need to be exhaustive. However, for a 13-parameter mutation tool with complex domain semantics (flexbox behavior), it minimally suffices but could benefit from noting the partial update pattern or mentioning that omitted properties retain current values.

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 all 13 parameters including valid values for enums (e.g., 'MIN, CENTER, MAX'). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline 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 uses specific verbs ('Set or update') and identifies the target resource ('auto-layout (flex) properties on an existing frame'). It distinguishes from sibling 'create_frame' by specifying 'existing' frame, and from other property setters like 'set_fills' by specifying 'auto-layout'.

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 phrase 'existing frame' implies a prerequisite that the frame must already exist, suggesting this is for modification rather than creation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus creating a new frame with layout properties, or what happens if the node isn't a frame.

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