Clear canvas

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the blast radius (plugin-drawn content only) but says nothing about reversibility, undo behavior, whether confirmation is needed, or what happens if nothing was drawn — meaningful gaps for a destructive, unrestricted 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?

Two short sentences with the action and scope front-loaded and the preservation guarantee immediately after. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 no-argument tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential what and how-much. The remaining gap is post-invocation behavior — return value and whether the deletion can be undone.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no argument semantics to explain. The description correctly implies the implicit scope is 'current page' rather than requiring an argument.

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?

A specific verb (remove) plus an explicit resource set (every flowchart and shape the figma-flow plugin drew), with the scope narrowed to the current Figma page. This is easily separable from the creation-oriented siblings draw_demo_flowchart and create_flowchart.

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 second sentence defines the boundary condition — everything else on the page is left alone — which effectively tells the agent when this tool is and isn't the right lever. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to call it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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