Delete a manual keyframe animation track from a Figma node by field, or clear every manual track on the node with all:true.
Remove one manual keyframe track from a node by field (same field naming as set_keyframe_track), or pass all:true to clear every manual track on the node.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| all | No | ||
| field | No | ||
| nodeId | Yes | ||
| paintIndex | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a genuine trait — only MANUAL tracks are affected, and all:true clears 'every manual track' — which is useful. However it omits error behavior (e.g., what happens if the field/track does not exist), reversibility, and permission requirements.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the alternative mode following. The parenthetical field-naming reference earns its place; nothing is padded, though the sentence is dense.
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?
A mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage demands more than one sentence. The undocumented 'paintIndex' and the absence of any success/failure or reversibility semantics leave real gaps for an agent invoking a destructive operation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully clarifies the two semantically complex params ('field' reuses set_keyframe_track naming; 'all' clears everything) and 'nodeId' is self-evident, but 'paintIndex' is left entirely undocumented in both the schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb (remove) and resource (manual keyframe track) scoped to a node by field, and explicitly references the sibling 'set_keyframe_track' for field naming, so an agent can distinguish it. It does not survey other animation siblings (apply_animation_style, set_timeline_duration), but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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?
Clearly lays out the two invocation modes: remove one track by 'field', or pass 'all:true' to clear every manual track. This gives the agent a decision rule for the two operating modes, though it offers no explicit when-not guidance or routing between the broader animation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.