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 only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed (e.g., edit access), whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid nodeId), or side effects (e.g., text formatting retention). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste—every word contributes to defining the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters and no complex behavior to explain.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral context (e.g., permissions, errors), usage guidelines versus siblings, and output details. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these gaps in a tool that modifies data.

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. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'nodeId' refers to an existing text node and 'text' is the new content, which is already covered by the schema. 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 specific action ('Set the text content') and resource ('an existing text node in Figma'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_text' (which creates new text nodes) and 'set_multiple_text_contents' (which handles multiple nodes). It precisely defines the tool's scope and target.

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 like 'set_multiple_text_contents' for bulk operations or 'create_text' for new nodes. It mentions 'existing text node' but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., node must be a text type) or exclusions (e.g., not for other node types).

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