Talk to Figma MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a mutation tool (implied by 'Set') and that it scrolls the viewport, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it requires specific permissions, if it's destructive to existing selections, what happens on invalid node IDs, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and misses key operational context.

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 action and secondary effect. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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, no output schema, and a mutation tool with potential side effects (viewport scrolling), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on error handling, response format, or interaction with other tools (e.g., 'get_selection'). For a tool that modifies state in a design environment, more context is needed for safe and effective 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%, with the parameter 'nodeIds' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no format examples, constraints, or relation to the scrolling behavior). 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 ('Set selection to multiple nodes') and the resource ('in Figma'), with an additional effect ('scroll viewport to show them'). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_selection' by being a write operation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other node manipulation tools like 'move_node' or 'delete_node' beyond the specific selection focus.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing valid node IDs), when not to use it, or how it relates to other selection or viewport tools. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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