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 full burden. It states the tool creates connections but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a write operation (implied by 'create'), what permissions are needed, whether it's idempotent, how errors are handled (e.g., invalid node IDs), or what happens if connections already exist. The mention of 'default connector style' hints at styling but doesn't explain if this is configurable elsewhere.

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 front-loads the core action ('create connections between nodes') and adds a useful constraint ('using the default connector style'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that performs a write operation ('create'). It lacks context on behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, error handling), output format, or integration with sibling tools. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't compensate for missing annotation and output information, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer usage.

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 documentation in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it implies the 'connections' parameter is an array and mentions 'default connector style', which relates to styling not explicitly covered in the schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on parameter semantics like node ID formats or text display behavior, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('create') and resource ('connections between nodes'), specifying it uses 'default connector style'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_rectangle' or 'create_text' by focusing on connections rather than nodes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential connection-related tools not present in the sibling list.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing nodes), exclusions, or compare with siblings like 'set_default_connector' (which might configure styles) or 'clone_node' (which might duplicate nodes with connections). Usage is implied only by the action itself.

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