Move a Figma node to a new X and Y position within its parent to reposition layers precisely.
Move a node to a new position within its parent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | New X position | |
| y | Yes | New Y position | |
| nodeId | Yes | The node ID to move |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.46.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the whole burden. It says nothing about coordinate space (absolute vs parent-relative), what happens to nodes inside auto-layout frames, whether the move is reversible, or what is returned — all material for a mutation tool.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is arguably too terse for a mutation tool, but there is no wasted text.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the mutation's effects and constraints. As written it omits coordinate semantics, layout-constraint behavior, and result, leaving an agent under-informed for a write operation.
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%, so nodeId/x/y are already documented. The phrase 'within its parent' adds a small hint that x/y may be parent-relative, but does not resolve the ambiguity or add format/syntax detail.
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 ('Move') and resource ('a node') plus the scope ('within its parent'), which distinguishes it from siblings like figma_resize_node, figma_clone_node, or figma_set_layout. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
No indication of when to use this instead of figma_resize_node, figma_set_layout, or figma_execute, and no preconditions (selection, parent type) are stated. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.