Delete component property

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds the crucial blast radius that annotations cannot: every instance loses the property, overrides included. That is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before a destructive call, plus per-type eligibility and editor-support caveats.

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 compact sentences, zero filler: the effect, the exception, and the alternative tool, followed by the editor-support note. The destructive consequence is front-loaded rather than buried.

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 destructive, no-output-schema tool with four params fully documented in the schema, the description covers what remains: destructiveness scope, which property types are legal, the VARIANT exception, the alternate tool, and platform support. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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, but the description adds semantic value beyond the schema: it names the four valid property types and clarifies that VARIANT is rejected, and it explains the relationship between a component and its component set that the schema only hints at. It does not add format details for the property key, but the schema already does.

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 (Delete) and resource (component property), enumerates the exact deletable property types (TEXT, BOOLEAN, INSTANCE_SWAP, SLOT), and explicitly carves out the exception (VARIANT) that an agent would reasonably assume was deletable. It also names the sibling figma_edit_component_property for the adjacent operation.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use (delete a property), a when-not with a named alternative (VARIANT cannot be deleted, rename variants instead), and routes to figma_edit_component_property for rename/rewire. Also states editor support (Design verified; FigJam and Slides unverified), which is a usage constraint.

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