Talk to Figma MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'clone' implies a write operation that creates a duplicate, the description doesn't mention whether this requires edit permissions, what happens to the original node, whether the clone inherits properties, or if there are rate limits. This leaves significant gaps 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in conveying the core functionality.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the clone operation returns, whether it preserves node properties, or any error conditions. For a tool that modifies the design state, more behavioral context is needed to use it effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already documented in the schema (nodeId, x, y positions). This meets the baseline score of 3 since the schema adequately covers parameter meanings.

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 clearly states the verb ('clone') and resource ('an existing node in Figma'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'create_frame' or 'create_rectangle' which also create new visual elements, missing an opportunity to clarify that cloning duplicates an existing node rather than creating a new one from scratch.

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. With siblings like 'create_frame', 'create_rectangle', and 'move_node', there's no indication whether cloning is preferred for duplicating existing nodes versus creating new ones or moving existing ones. No context about prerequisites or limitations is mentioned.

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