remove_animation_style

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

The annotation already marks destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the conditional behavior of removing one vs all, plus the return shape { ok, nodeId }. The description aligns with annotations and adds practical context about the id source.

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 three sentences: purpose, usage variation, return value. No filler, information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the operation, the conditional behavior, and the return value. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by stating the return format. It also references related tools for obtaining the id.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description enriches the meaning by specifying that animationStyleId is the appliedStyleId from apply_animation_style or get_node_motion, and clarifies that omitting it removes all. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's one-line descriptions.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Remove an applied Figma Motion animation style from a node.' It distinguishes this from siblings like apply_animation_style and get_node_motion by naming the specific action and scope.

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 explains when to pass animationStyleId (to remove a specific one) and when to omit (to remove all), and directs users to get the id from apply_animation_style or get_node_motion. It clearly frames the usage context, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for deleting style definitions.

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