Move nodes

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: auto-layout ownership of x/y, a fill axis becoming fixed, partial-failure semantics ('one node failing does not fail the call'), per-item error reporting, and editor support (Design verified; FigJam/Slides unverified). It stops short of permission/rate-limit or positional-conflict caveats, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the two core modes, and every clause carries information; however the parenthetical asides ('a fill axis becomes fixed first; the item says so') add minor verbosity. Dense but largely justified.

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 carries the burden and delivers: it documents the return shape (items: [{id, ok, error?}]), failure semantics, and editor coverage. Nothing critical to calling it correctly 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 57%; the description compensates for the key ambiguous params by clarifying relative, positioning, and that x/y are 'written together and read back.' It doesn't touch nodeIds, session, or idempotencyKey (the latter is well-documented in the schema), so it adds meaningful but not exhaustive value.

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+resource ('Move nodes') with two modes (absolute position vs delta via relative:true), and explicitly differentiates from siblings figma_move_slides and figma_reparent_nodes. An agent can tell what this does and what it is not 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?

Explains when to use positioning:'absolute' (badge on a card's corner, close button on a modal) vs 'auto' (put it back), and routes the agent to alternatives for slides and reparenting. This is explicit when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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