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 'selecting' and 'scrolling viewport', which implies UI interaction and potential side effects, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or what happens if the node is already selected. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 purpose ('Set focus on a specific node in Figma') and adds necessary behavioral detail ('by selecting it and scrolling viewport to it'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value, error conditions, or side effects beyond basic actions. Given the complexity of UI interaction in Figma, more context on behavior and outcomes is needed.

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% for the single parameter 'nodeId', which is documented as 'The ID of the node to focus on'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 focus'), the resource ('a specific node in Figma'), and the specific behaviors ('by selecting it and scrolling viewport to it'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_selection' (reads selection) or 'set_selections' (sets multiple selections) by focusing on a single node with viewport adjustment.

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 valid node ID), exclusions (e.g., not for multiple nodes), or sibling tools that might be relevant (e.g., 'set_selections' for multiple nodes, 'get_node_info' for info without focusing).

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