figma-mcp-go

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

While annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, the description adds no context about what destruction entails (overwriting existing fills), the implications of non-idempotency, or side effects. The schema describes the 'mode' parameter behavior, but the main description omits this critical behavioral nuance entirely.

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 single sentence is efficient and front-loaded with the core action. However, extreme brevity contributes to under-specification; while no words are wasted, the description lacks necessary qualifying information for a destructive operation.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks explanation of error states, return behavior, side effects on node appearance, or warnings about data loss (existing fills being overwritten), despite the operation's destructive nature indicated in annotations.

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 all parameters including the 'nodeId' format and 'mode' options. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema ('fill color' restates the 'color' parameter), warranting the baseline score 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 states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('fill color of a node'), but fails to distinguish from siblings like 'set_strokes', 'set_opacity', or 'apply_style_to_node'. It doesn't clarify whether this replaces existing fills or handles multiple fills, leaving functional ambiguity despite the basic action being clear.

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 like 'apply_style_to_node' or other 'set_' tools. No prerequisites mentioned (e.g., node existence verification), and no exclusions or error conditions described.

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