Deletes a slide from a Figma presentation by node ID. Use it to remove unwanted slides; the operation is destructive but reversible with Figma's undo.
Delete a slide from the presentation. WARNING: This is a destructive operation (can be undone with Figma's undo).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slideId | Yes | The node ID of the slide to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.46.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait: destructive but undoable via Figma's undo. It omits what else is lost (e.g., slide content, slots, animations referencing it), permission requirements, and whether confirmation is returned.
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?
Two tight sentences with the destructive warning front and center after the action. No filler, though the parenthetical undo note could be phrased more precisely.
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?
A destructive single-param tool with no annotations and no output schema needs a bit more than a one-line warning – e.g., whether it fails on non-existent IDs or what is returned on success. The undo hint is the main value-add, leaving the definition only minimally 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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter slideId is documented as 'The node ID of the slide to delete.' The description adds no format, sourcing (how to obtain the ID), or constraint information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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: 'Delete a slide from the presentation.' It's clearly distinguishable from most siblings, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the more generic figma_delete_node or the slide-related siblings like figma_duplicate_slide.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus figma_delete_node, figma_duplicate_slide, or other slide tools, and no preconditions or exclusions are named. The agent must infer selection from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.