Detach instance

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds meaningful detail beyond them: the operation cannot be re-attached, the frame receives a new id, partial failures are isolated per item, and editor coverage is noted. Auth/permission requirements and rate limits remain unmentioned.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core effect before the caveats, return shape, failure semantics, and editor scope. No sentence is 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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys the return shape (items with id/ok/error), irreversibility, partial-failure behavior, and platform applicability. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the call.

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 self-documented in the schema, while nodeIds has no description. The description's "per item" framing weakly implies a list input but adds no real semantics for nodeIds, so the 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?

States a specific verb ("Detach") plus resource ("instances") plus the concrete outcome ("into plain frames that no longer follow their component"). This is precise enough to distinguish it from siblings like figma_create_instance and figma_swap_component.

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 description clarifies the effect and that it is irreversible, and names supported editors, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. Usage is only implied by the described outcome.

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