Reparent or reorder a layer

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds concrete ordering semantics: index 0 means back of canvas/top of layer list, and omitting index appends last. It also reinforces the default parent behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact sentences: the first states the purpose, the second clarifies the key index behavior. No filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 simple mutation with no output schema, the description covers core intent, the two operational modes, and the important index default. It could mention side effects of reparenting, but the destructiveHint annotation already signals risk.

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 already documents all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful detail for 'index' by explaining layer order and default placement, which goes beyond the schema's simple 'Position among siblings'.

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 ('Moves') and resource ('a node') and clearly covers both reparenting and sibling reordering. This distinguishes it from nearby mutators like figma_delete_node or figma_clone_node without requiring the agent to infer intent.

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?

It gives concrete conditions for both use cases: moving into another parent or changing position among siblings, and explains the default when index is omitted. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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