Remove prototype reactions

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

Annotations already establish non-readonly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds the two things they don't: the removal is wholesale ('every' interaction, not a targeted one) and it is only verified on the Design editor surface. That is genuine added context. The tension with destructiveHint=false (this does erase existing interactions) and the lack of any reversibility or error-behavior note keep it from a 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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the editor-scope caveat. Every clause carries information.

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 single-node bulk mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action and the editor surfaces it is verified on. It omits what a caller gets back, what happens on an unsupported surface, and whether the change is recoverable — gaps that matter for a wholesale removal operation.

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, and nodeId has no description at all. The phrase 'from a node' only weakly signals that nodeId is the node whose reactions are cleared and offers no format hint (e.g., Figma node id syntax). With the schema doing most of the work, a 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 and resource with an explicit scope qualifier: 'Remove every prototype interaction from a node.' This clearly separates it from figma_get_reactions and figma_set_reactions, whose names imply reading or replacing rather than clearing. It stops short of naming those siblings, but the action is unambiguous.

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' clause gives real applicability context — the agent knows this is a design-mode operation that may not work on FigJam/Slides boards. However, it never says when to reach for this tool versus figma_set_reactions for partial edits, nor what happens when the node has no reactions to remove. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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