set_effects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does communicate the destructive replace semantics and the empty-array clearing behavior, which is meaningful, but says nothing about return values, error behavior for invalid nodes, or Figma quirks (e.g. only one drop shadow/inner shadow allowed per node).

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the edge case (clearing) immediately following. Nothing should be removed.

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 two-parameter setter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is set and the clearing case, but leaves the mutation's side effects and failure modes unaddressed. Adequate minimum, with clear gaps for an agent reasoning about a write operation.

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 schema already documents nodeId and the effect object fields (baseline 3). The description adds semantics beyond the schema by explaining that an empty effects array clears all effects, a behavior not derivable from the schema alone.

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 specific verb and resource ('Replace the effects ... of a node') and enumerates exactly which effect kinds are covered (drop/inner shadows, layer/background blur). "Of a node" implicitly separates it from the effect-style siblings (create_effect_style, apply_effect_style), and the second sentence pins down the clear-all case.

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 empty-array instruction is a useful concrete usage rule, but there is no guidance on when to use this direct node setter versus apply_effect_style or create_effect_style, nor any prerequisites (e.g. which node types accept which effect kinds). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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