delete_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the safety burden. It does state the destructive action, but it does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, whether child/descendant nodes are also removed, or whether any permissions are required.

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?

A single sentence with no filler that front-loads the action, object, and input. Every phrase earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with a fully documented schema, the basics are covered. But because this is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should also note irreversibility or cascading deletion to be fully context-complete.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents nodeIds as 'Array of node IDs to remove'. The description only reinforces this with 'by their IDs', adding no extra format, constraints, or usage nuance.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Delete'), a clear resource ('nodes from the Figma canvas'), and a precise selection method ('by their IDs'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling node tools like create_node, update_node, and duplicate_node without needing to open 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?

The behavior implies it is the right tool whenever nodes need to be removed, and no sibling tool offers deletion. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions, such as whether protected or frame nodes behave differently.

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