Apply multiple annotations to Figma nodes in parallel, letting AI agents label or update several elements at once from a single request.
Set multiple annotations parallelly in a node
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeId | Yes | The ID of the node containing the elements to annotate | |
| annotations | Yes | Array of annotations 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Set' implies mutation, but the description does not state whether existing annotations are replaced, whether updates require annotationId, how partial failures are handled, or any other side effects.
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 short sentence with no filler words, making it easy to parse. It is concise rather than bloated, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.
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?
The tool involves a nested annotations array with optional categorization and update IDs, yet the description only says to set multiple annotations. There is no guidance on how updating existing annotations works, what 'in a node' means relative to the nested nodeId, or what happens after the operation. With no output schema and no annotations, this is insufficient for reliable invocation.
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?
The input schema provides thorough descriptions for the top-level parameters and most nested fields, so the description adds little beyond schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting; the description does not clarify ambiguous points like how categoryId/annotationId relate to creating versus updating.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Set multiple annotations' in a node, which conveys a batch mutation operation. It is implicitly distinct from the singular sibling tool set_annotation, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.
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 explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus set_annotation, get_annotations, or other annotation-related tools. The word 'multiple' implies batch usage, but there is no stated condition, exclusion, or alternative recommendation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.