delete_node

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses that deletion happens in the currently open file. It says nothing about irreversibility, whether undo is possible, permission or plugin requirements, or whether children of the node are removed with it.

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 or redundancy. It is efficiently structured, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing of rich content.

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 destructive, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the definition is too thin: it omits irreversibility, side effects on child nodes, and required preconditions. The only compensating detail is the scope ('открытого файла'), which is not enough for a delete 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 both nodeId and the retry-oriented operationId are already documented in the schema, including the caching behavior. The description only restates that the node is identified by id, adding no meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Удаляет ноду') plus the scope ('из открытого файла Figma по id'), so the agent knows exactly what is removed and from where. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from destructive-adjacent siblings like clone_node, move_node or update_node.

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 call this versus alternatives, no preconditions (must the node be selected, unlocked, or inside the current page?), and no note about what to do after deletion. The agent must infer all usage context from the single sentence.

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