Apply or detach an effect style to Figma nodes, including frames, components, instances, and shapes, with per-node success reporting.
Apply an effect style to one or more nodes (frames, components, instances, shapes). Pass styleId '' to detach. Reports per-node success.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeId | No | ID of a single node | |
| nodeIds | No | IDs of multiple nodes | |
| styleId | Yes | ID of the effect style to apply, or '' to detach |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are reported per node (partial-failure semantics) and that an empty styleId detaches, but it says nothing about permissions, whether detaching loses prior effect data, or what happens to nodes that fail.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the detach special case, then the result semantics. No filler or repetition.
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 covers scope (multiple node types), the detach escape hatch, and per-node result reporting. It leaves permission requirements and failure causes unstated, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.
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 nodeId/nodeIds/styleId are already documented. The description adds the node-type scope and reiterates the detach convention, but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb (apply) plus resource (effect style) with an explicit enumeration of supported node types, and it clearly separates itself from sibling mutators like set_effects (direct effect values) and apply_text_style (different style domain). An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is implied by the description (attach via styleId, detach via empty string), but it never states when to prefer this over sibling set_effects or how it relates to create_effect_style/update_effect_style. No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.