figma_delete_nodeDelete a Figma node and its entire subtree in one undoable step. Specify the node ID to remove it, so designers can revert with a single Cmd-Z.
Removes a node and everything inside it. One undo step, so the designer can take it back with a single Cmd-Z — but say what you are deleting before you do it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeId | Yes | The node to delete. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, covering the destructive nature. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that the operation is one undo step (reversible by a single Cmd-Z) and includes a caution to communicate the deletion. This exceeds what annotations alone provide.
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 extremely concise, with the core operation front-loaded in the first clause and a brief, useful caution appended. No wasted words; every phrase earns its place.
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 single-parameter tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It discloses reversibility and a precaution. The only missing element is behavior on invalid/nonexistent node IDs, but that is a common expectation and not critical for correct invocation. No output schema exists, but a delete operation typically returns success/void, so the absence is acceptable.
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 schema description coverage is 100% (nodeId has a description: 'The node to delete.'), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond reinforcing that the node is targeted. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, this is a 3.
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 clear, specific verb ('Removes') and resource ('a node'), and explicitly includes the scope ('everything inside it'). This distinguishes it from siblings like figma_move_node or figma_clone_node without ambiguity.
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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternative tools. However, the operation is self-evident as a deletion, so the lack of routing is a minor gap. It does caution to 'say what you are deleting before you do it,' which implies a usage context but does not elaborate on alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.