figma-mcp-go

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) by using 'Set', confirming it is a write operation. However, it adds minimal context beyond annotations: it doesn't clarify that setting overwrites previous values (destructive), explain the openWorldHint implication, or describe the effect on nodes using this variable in the specified mode.

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. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and target resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 3-parameter schema with full coverage and present annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, given destructiveHint=true and lack of output schema, gaps remain: it should clarify the overwrite behavior and confirm no return value or side effects beyond the variable update.

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 already documents all parameters including value formats (COLOR hex, FLOAT number, etc.). The description adds conceptual grouping ('for a specific mode') but doesn't provide additional syntax, validation rules, or format details beyond the schema.

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 ('variable's value') and scope ('for a specific mode'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like create_variable (which creates definitions) or bind_variable_to_node (which applies variables to nodes) by mentioning 'mode', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 like create_variable or bind_variable_to_node. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that the variable and mode must already exist) or when not to use it.

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