Move a Figma layer to the back of its parent in z-order by passing its node ID, so it sits behind all sibling layers.
Send a layer to the back of its parent (z-order). In Figma, children[0] is back-most.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeId | Yes | The layer to send to the back. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the z-order model (children[0] is back-most), which tells the agent what the effect actually is, but omits prerequisites (node must have a parent) and what happens if the node is already back-most.
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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core operation front-loaded and the clarifying z-order convention immediately after.
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 one-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the operation, its target position, and the underlying ordering convention. Only prerequisite/edge-case behavior is left unstated.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The layer to send to the back.'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format or identifier details beyond that.
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 (send) and resource (layer) with the target position (back of its parent). The parenthetical '(z-order)' and the note about children[0] make the operation unambiguous. It does not name the obvious sibling bring_to_front, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
Use is implied by the statement of effect (reordering z-order within a parent), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the complementary tool bring_to_front or arrange_children, which an agent would want for the inverse operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.