Assign a Figma text style to one or multiple TEXT nodes by ID, including text within instances, and report per-node success.
Apply a text style to one or more TEXT nodes (also works on text inside instances, e.g. 'I;'). Reports per-node success.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeId | No | ID of a single text node | |
| nodeIds | No | IDs of multiple text nodes | |
| styleId | Yes | ID of the text style to apply |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool covers text inside instances (with the 'I<instanceId>;<textId>' ID form) and that it reports per-node success, but says nothing about permissions, behavior on non-text nodes, reversibility, or error handling.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence plus a tight parenthetical example; every clause carries information (target node type, instance edge case, per-node result reporting). No filler.
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 the salient behavioral bits (instance support, per-node success) but omits safety affordances such as required permissions and what happens on partial failure. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond it by clarifying the single-vs-multiple node intent and the instance-scoped ID syntax that the schema does not explain. It stops short of describing styleId resolution or required-parameter behavior.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource (apply a text style) and scopes it to TEXT nodes, including the instance-nested case. The purpose is unambiguous, though it never contrasts itself with siblings like create_text_style, update_text_style, or set_text_content.
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 when-to-use or when-not guidance is given, and no alternative is named. The reader is left to infer that styleId must reference an existing style (get_styles/create_text_style) and cannot tell how this differs from other text-mutating siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.