Ungroup

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 real substance beyond them: what is destroyed (the group node itself), where its children go, the partial-failure contract ('one node failing does not fail the call'), the per-item result shape, and editor support bounds (Design verified; FigJam/Slides unverified).

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 effect, then the scope constraint, then return semantics, then editor support — every sentence mostly earns its place. The 'Each item reports childIds' clause is the one weak spot, adding ambiguity without matching the described result objects.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return contract itself (items: [{id, ok, error?}] with per-item failure isolation), which it does. Combined with the destruction semantics, alternative routing, and editor scope, an agent has everything needed to call this mutation safely.

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 documented in the schema itself. nodeIds (the sole required param) has no schema description and the description doesn't clarify it either; 'Each item reports childIds' is ambiguous and does not line up with nodeIds or with the stated result shape. Baseline 3 for mid coverage.

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 precise verb+resource ('Unwrap groups') and immediately explains the resulting structural change: children move up to the parent and the group disappears. It also explicitly names the sibling it is not (figma_reparent_nodes for frames), so an agent can distinguish it without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Only GROUP nodes') and routes the adjacent-but-different case to the correct alternative ('to move children out of a frame use figma_reparent_nodes'). This is a genuine when/when-not/alternative statement rather than implied usage.

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