figma-mcp-go

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

While annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, the description adds no context explaining WHY the tool is non-idempotent (the append mode stacking strokes) or what gets destroyed (existing strokes in replace mode). It misses the opportunity to explain that multiple strokes can exist on a node, which is critical behavioral information.

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 is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it is arguably too concise for a destructive, non-idempotent tool with four parameters, as it omits crucial behavioral details (the append/replace distinction) that should have been included.

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?

The description covers the basic operation but leaves significant gaps. Given the destructive nature and the presence of a 'mode' parameter that controls stacking behavior, the description should explicitly address the replace/append behavior. As written, it is minimally viable but incomplete for safe usage.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'color and weight', reinforcing two parameters, but completely omits the 'mode' parameter despite its significant behavioral impact. It adds no syntax details or examples beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Set') and identifies the resource ('stroke color and weight') clearly. It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_fills' or 'set_corner_radius' by specifying 'stroke'. However, it fails to mention the 'mode' parameter's functionality (append vs replace), which is central to how strokes are managed, preventing a score of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'set_fills' for interior color vs 'set_strokes' for borders). It also fails to explain when to use 'append' mode versus 'replace' mode, leaving users without decision-making context.

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