Conduit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it states the action is deletion (implying destructive mutation), it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, permission requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The return format is described but lacks context about what happens on failure.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one describing the return format. It's front-loaded with the core action. The return format explanation could be slightly more efficient but doesn't significantly detract from clarity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and return format but misses critical context: safety warnings, prerequisites, error handling, and how it differs from similar node manipulation tools. The return description helps but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral transparency.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (nodeId and nodeIds parameters with their formats and constraints). This meets the baseline 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 states the action ('Deletes') and resource ('one or more nodes in Figma'), providing specific verb+resource information. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'flatten_node' or 'detach_instances' which might also involve node manipulation, missing full sibling differentiation.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that manipulate nodes (e.g., 'move_node', 'duplicate_node', 'flatten_node'), there's no indication of when deletion is appropriate versus other operations, leaving the agent without usage context.

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