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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Set' implies a mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens if invalid values are provided. It lacks details on error conditions, rate limits, or response format.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero wasted content.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses behavioral details, usage context, and error handling that would help an agent use it correctly in real scenarios.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'The ID of the frame to modify', 'Top padding value'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already documented in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema 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 padding values') and target resource ('for an auto-layout frame in Figma'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other sibling tools that also modify frame properties (like set_axis_align, set_item_spacing, set_layout_mode), so it doesn't fully differentiate from alternatives.

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., the frame must already exist or be in auto-layout mode), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like set_item_spacing or set_layout_mode that also affect frame layout.

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