figma-mcp-go

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

Annotations already declare this is destructive (destructiveHint=true) and not read-only. The description adds context about the parameter logic (uniform vs. individual values) but does not disclose what happens if both are provided simultaneously, nor does it address error handling, rate limits, or side effects beyond what annotations indicate.

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 efficient sentences with zero waste. The first establishes the core operation, and the second provides essential parameter guidance. Every word 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?

Given the comprehensive schema and annotations, the description covers the essential operation. However, it lacks completeness regarding edge cases (parameter precedence if both uniform and individual values are provided) and does not describe the return value or success behavior, which would be helpful given there is no output schema.

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 value by clarifying the relationship between the uniform 'cornerRadius' parameter and the specific corner parameters (topLeftRadius, etc.), suggesting they are alternative approaches. This semantic grouping is not explicit in the schema itself.

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 clearly states the action ('Set') and target ('corner radius on one or more nodes'). It is specific about the resource being modified. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling styling tools like set_fills or set_strokes, relying on the tool name to provide that distinction.

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 provides usage patterns for the parameters ('uniform cornerRadius or individual per-corner values'), which hints at how to structure the input. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to select this tool versus other styling tools or prerequisites for the nodes (e.g., must be rectangles/frames).

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