Deletes a specified Figma canvas node by ID; use for removing unwanted design elements, with Figma undo available to reverse the destructive action.
Delete a node from the canvas. WARNING: This is a destructive operation (can be undone with Figma's undo).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeId | Yes | The node ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.46.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states the operation is 'destructive' and includes the crucial mitigating detail that the action can be undone with Figma's undo feature.
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?
The description is extremely concise, front-loading the function description followed immediately by the critical safety warning. Both sentences are necessary and serve a vital communication purpose.
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 simple, single-parameter deletion tool, the definition is fully complete. The necessary contextual warning about destructiveness makes it highly complete for agent invocation and safety checks.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter ('nodeId'). The description does not add any semantic meaning or context to the parameter beyond what the tool's function already implies, aligning with the baseline score for high schema 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?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Delete a node') and the target resource ('from the canvas'). While the name is highly specific, the description successfully communicates the tool's core function.
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 usage is implied by the tool's function, but it provides no guidance on when this tool is necessary versus similar manipulation tools like moving or renaming nodes, resulting in only implied usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.