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 but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a mutation (implied by 'Set'), what happens on errors (e.g., partial updates), authentication needs, or rate limits. The term 'parallelly' is vague—does it mean concurrent processing or atomic batch? More context is needed for safe invocation.

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 with zero waste—'Set multiple annotations parallelly in a node' directly conveys the core action and scope. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 what annotations are used for, return values (e.g., success/failure indicators), error handling, or side effects. Given the complexity of batch updates and lack of structured safety hints, more context is needed for reliable agent use.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying batch processing via 'multiple annotations parallelly', which aligns with the 'annotations' array parameter. No syntax or format details beyond the schema are provided, meeting the baseline for high 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 action ('Set multiple annotations') and target ('in a node'), with 'parallelly' hinting at batch/parallel processing. It distinguishes from sibling 'set_annotation' by emphasizing multiple annotations, but doesn't specify what annotations are (e.g., labels, comments) or their purpose in the node context.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_annotation' (for single annotations) or 'get_annotations' (for reading). The description implies batch operations but doesn't specify scenarios (e.g., bulk updates, initialization) or prerequisites (e.g., node existence, permissions).

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