set_overlay_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discharges it well: it discloses that the properties are READ-ONLY in the Figma Plugin API, that calling with any setting returns an error alongside the current values, and that values must be changed manually. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to avoid a failed call.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose then the crucial read-only caveat. No filler, though the parenthetical property list partially duplicates schema content.

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 compensates by explaining that calls return the current values alongside an error. Combined with the read-only disclosure, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret correctly; minor absence of an explicit return-shape description keeps it from a 5.

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%, and each parameter already carries a description (nodeId, position enum, background shape, closeOnClickOutside). The description names the three settings but adds no syntax or format meaning 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?

The description states a specific verb (Read) and resource (overlay settings of a frame used as an overlay), listing the covered properties. It is distinct from siblings like set_frame_properties or set_reactions. However the name 'set_overlay_settings' conflicts with the described read behavior, which could momentarily mislead an agent despite the description's honesty.

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?

It implies usage (to inspect overlay settings) and offers a workaround – set them manually in Figma's Prototype panel – but does not explicitly frame when to call this versus alternatives in a task flow. Context 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.