figma-mcp-go

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

Annotations indicate destructive, non-idempotent write behavior, but the description doesn't elaborate on what gets destroyed (previous field values) or that partial updates are possible. It adds value by listing which specific fields are mutable, but doesn't address the behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste. 'Existing' earns its place by implying prerequisites, and the field list maps directly to the three optional parameters.

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?

Adequate for a straightforward CRUD update with 100% schema coverage and rich annotations covering the safety profile. Could be improved by clarifying partial update behavior (whether omitted fields are cleared or preserved).

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 appropriately 3. The description mirrors the schema's field list without adding syntax details (e.g., it doesn't explain the styleId format beyond what the schema 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?

Clear verb ('Update') and resource ('paint style') with specific field enumeration ('name, color, or description'). The word 'existing' helps distinguish from the sibling 'create_paint_style', though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the word 'existing' (suggesting the style must already exist and thus distinguishing from creation workflows), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'delete_style' or prerequisites like required permissions.

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