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. It describes the mutation action ('swapped', 'applied') but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is destructive (overwrites existing overrides), requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on failure. The phrase 'target instances will be swapped' hints at modification but doesn't fully disclose risks or side effects.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and efficiently explain the process. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating prerequisites from the action. Every sentence adds value, making it appropriately concise for a mutation tool.

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, this is a mutation tool with incomplete context. The description covers the basic operation but lacks details on permissions, error handling, return values, or how it interacts with sibling tools like 'get_instance_overrides'. For a tool that modifies component instances, more behavioral transparency is needed to be complete.

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 already documents both parameters fully. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying 'previously copied overrides' context for sourceInstanceId and 'selected instances' for targetNodeIds, but no additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Apply previously copied overrides') and target ('selected component instances'), with specific details about swapping to source component and applying override properties. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_instance_overrides' or 'set_axis_align', but the verb 'apply' is specific enough to understand the core function.

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 mentions 'previously copied overrides' and 'currently selected instances will be used', which implies prerequisites but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_axis_align' for different property types or 'clone_node' for duplication. No clear exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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