Delete styles

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

Adds real behavior beyond annotations: dependent nodes 'keep the values it gave them' (the actual consequence of destruction), per-item partial-failure semantics ('one node failing does not fail the call'), and editor scope. This is substantive context that annotations alone (destructive/idempotent hints) cannot convey.

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?

Punchy and front-loaded with verb+resource first, then dependency effect, id source, return shape, and editor scope. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description documents the return shape (items array with id/ok/error), partial-failure behavior, the side effect on dependent nodes, and editor availability. Nothing essential for a correct call 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 67% and the schema already documents idempotencyKey richly; the description reinforces styleIds ('by id') and its source. It does not mention the session parameter, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb (delete) and resource (local styles: paint, text, effect, grid) with the keying method (by id). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like figma_update_style and figma_create_*_style.

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 prerequisite pointer ('figma_get_styles lists ids') and editor availability ('Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides'), which tells the agent where the tool works. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or a named destructive alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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