Reset slot

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description adds what is destroyed ('what was added into them'), partial-failure semantics ('one node failing does not fail the call'), the per-item result shape, and editor support. That is substantive behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its destructive effect, then the routing guidance, then the return contract. No sentence is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description supplies the return contract (items: [{ id, ok, error? }]) and partial-failure behavior, plus editor availability. For a destructive mutation tool, nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes further by specifying that nodeIds must be SLOT layers of instances and pointing to figma_search_nodes type SLOT as the way to find them. session and idempotencyKey are left to the schema, which documents them adequately.

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 precise scope: putting slots inside instances back to the component's own slot content and dropping added content. An agent can distinguish this from figma_create_slot and figma_delete_nodes without opening any 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?

Names an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it ('To empty one layer at a time use figma_delete_nodes instead'), and tells the agent how to obtain valid targets (figma_search_nodes with type SLOT). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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