figma-mcp-go

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

The annotations establish the destructive, non-idempotent nature of the operation, so the description's primary behavioral addition is specifying that the target must be an existing TEXT node. However, it fails to disclose error behaviors, such as what happens if the nodeId does not exist, and does not address the openWorldHint 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 a single, efficient nine-word sentence that immediately communicates the core operation without redundant phrases or unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place in conveying the tool's essential function.

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 simple two-parameter input schema, the presence of comprehensive annotations covering safety and idempotency, and the lack of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It appropriately delegates parameter details to the schema, though it could benefit from mentioning validation constraints.

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 score is 3, and the description does not significantly expand upon the parameter semantics beyond implying through 'existing TEXT node' that nodeId requires a valid text node identifier. The schema already fully documents the colon format for nodeId.

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 the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'text content' and explicitly targets an 'existing TEXT node', which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'create_text'. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or clarify when to use this versus other text manipulation tools like 'bind_variable_to_node'.

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 explicit guidance on when to select this tool over alternatives such as 'create_text' for new nodes or text variable tools. There are no stated prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions to help the agent determine proper usage context.

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