Remove a specific node from your Figma design by its node ID, enabling you to delete unwanted elements and maintain a clean layout.
Delete a node from Figma
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeId | Yes | The ID of the node to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev1.0.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / nodeIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The ID of the node to delete",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "nodeId"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic delete action and omits critical traits such as irreversibility, whether child nodes are deleted, or any side effects. For a destructive operation, this is a significant transparency gap.
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 a single, direct sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, but it is so minimal that it omits useful behavioral context; still, as far as structure and brevity, it is clean.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention the irreversible nature of the operation, whether children are affected, or how this tool differs from 'delete_multiple_nodes'. An agent is left without key information for safe invocation.
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% and the 'nodeId' parameter is clearly described as 'The ID of the node to delete'. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema but does not need to, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Delete'), a resource ('node'), and a context ('from Figma'), making the core action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'delete_multiple_nodes', so the specificity is slightly incomplete, but the singular phrasing and tool name carry that distinction.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'delete_multiple_nodes'. The description gives no context for choosing between single and batch deletion, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.