delete_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, affects other nodes, or has rate limits. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple operation and front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.

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 doesn't address critical context like what 'delete' means in Figma's context (permanent removal from file? moves to trash?), error conditions, or what happens to child elements. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool safely and correctly.

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%, with the single parameter 'nodeId' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides (no format examples, no constraints on valid node IDs). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Delete') and target resource ('a node from Figma'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other destructive operations like 'clone_node' or 'move_node' in terms of what type of deletion occurs (permanent vs temporary, reversible vs irreversible).

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing node permissions), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete locked nodes), or what happens after deletion (e.g., whether parent-child relationships are affected). With multiple sibling tools that manipulate nodes, this lack of differentiation is problematic.

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