Delete variable collection

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds real value by disclosing the cascade: every contained variable is destroyed, not just the collection. It does not say whether the operation is undoable or how it fails when the collection is missing.

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, no filler, with the destructive scope front-loaded ahead of the platform note. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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, non-read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential risk (cascading variable loss) and environment applicability. Minor gaps remain around failure behavior and reversibility, but the annotations plus schema cover retry/idempotency adequately.

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%: session and idempotencyKey are well documented in the schema, but collectionId has no description anywhere, and the description adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance for it. Nothing beyond the structured fields is contributed, so the baseline 3 fits.

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?

Specific verb (Delete) plus resource (variable collection) plus scope of the effect ('together with every variable in it'), which cleanly separates it from figma_delete_variable and figma_delete_style. An agent can pick this out of the large sibling list without opening the schema.

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 'Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides' note gives platform applicability, which is useful context, but it never says when to choose this over figma_delete_variable (single variable), figma_update_variable_collection, or figma_undo_step. Usage is implied by the verb rather than stated.

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