set_text_content

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states basic action without detailing side effects (e.g., whether it preserves existing formatting), permissions required, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, concise and front-loaded. However, it omits important behavioral context that could be added without disrupting conciseness.

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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description is minimal. It does not distinguish behavior from siblings like update_text_preserve_formatting, nor explains output or limitations. For a tool with 2 required params and common use case, more context is expected.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% as both parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'set', resource 'text content', and scope 'existing text node in Figma'. It distinguishes from siblings like create_text (creates new node) and set_multiple_text_contents (bulk operation) by specifying single node modification.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_multiple_text_contents or update_text_preserve_formatting. The description implies usage for changing text of a single node but does not explain exclusion cases (e.g., bulk edits or formatting preservation).

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