Reparent nodes

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), it discloses per-item result semantics with partial-failure tolerance, a connector 'warning' on moved items, the keepPosition canvas behavior, and editor support (Design verified; FigJam/Slides unverified). This is substantial behavioral context the annotations do not carry.

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 core action, then details in roughly priority order; almost no filler and the sticky example is illustrative rather than padding. It is dense across several clauses in one sentence, which slightly taxes readability.

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 compensates by describing the return shape (items: [{ id, ok, error? }]) and the partial-failure contract, plus editor support and connector caveats. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 75%, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the interplay between keepPosition and explicit x/y (mutually exclusive placement modes) and that x/y are interpreted in the new parent's coordinates after the move. That goes beyond the schema's field-level notes.

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?

The opening sentence states a specific verb (move/reparent) and resource (nodes), and enumerates the valid parent types (frame, group, component, section, slide, page). This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like figma_move_nodes or figma_reorder_nodes without inspecting schemas.

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?

It explicitly routes slides to the sibling figma_move_slides and clarifies the two position modes (retain x/y vs keepPosition vs explicit x/y), which is genuine usage context. It stops short of stating when to use this over figma_move_nodes or figma_reorder_nodes, so it is clear context without full when/when-not coverage.

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