combine_as_variants

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the post-operation layout behavior (grid, max 4 columns, 24px gap, 24px padding) and the resize behavior including the auto-layout exception. It does not state permission/auth needs or error behavior, but the transformation it performs is well conveyed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the naming requirement, then the layout side effects. Every sentence adds information an agent needs, with no padding.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and the layout/transform behavior — enough for an agent to call it correctly. Minor gaps (return value shape, error cases) are acceptable for a mutation tool without declared annotations.

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% (baseline 3), and the description adds a meaningful constraint by explaining the required variant-naming convention that governs valid componentIds. The name and parentId parameters are left to schema descriptions but are minor and adequately documented there.

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?

States a precise verb and resource: 'Combine multiple main Components into a Component Set (variants).' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_component_from_node, create_component_instance, and add_component_property, which do related but different operations.

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?

Provides a strong precondition — each component name must use the 'Prop=Value' variant format so Figma can derive properties — which is essential context for success. However, it does not explicitly route the agent away from related siblings (e.g., when to use create_component_from_node instead), so alternative selection is left implicit.

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