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. It mentions that overrides 'can be applied to other instances', hinting at a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, or what happens if no instance is selected when nodeId is omitted. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose. It efficiently explains what the tool does and a potential use case. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes from the primary function.

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. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., structure of overrides), error conditions, or dependencies. For a retrieval tool in a design context, more context about the output and behavior would help the agent use it correctly.

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%, so the schema fully documents the single optional parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, but with only one parameter and high coverage, the baseline is strong. No additional semantics are needed for adequate understanding.

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 ('Get') and resource ('override properties from a selected component instance'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on retrieving overrides rather than creating, modifying, or deleting nodes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'get_node_info' or 'get_styles' that also retrieve data about nodes.

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., needing a component instance), exclusions, or compare it to similar retrieval tools like 'get_node_info'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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