Talk to Figma MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Set' operation (implying mutation) but doesn't describe permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what happens to existing alignment settings. For a mutation 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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with well-documented parameters in the schema.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks important context about behavioral implications, error handling, and relationships with other auto-layout configuration tools. The comprehensive parameter documentation in the schema helps, but doesn't fully compensate for the missing behavioral transparency.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions including enum values and their meanings. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets but doesn't exceed the baseline expectation when schema documentation is comprehensive.

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 action ('Set') and target ('primary and counter axis alignment for an auto-layout frame in Figma'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'set_layout_mode' or 'set_item_spacing', which also configure auto-layout properties.

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., that the node must be an auto-layout frame), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'set_layout_mode' or 'set_item_spacing' that might affect alignment behavior.

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