figma_rollback

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds crucial behavioral detail: it removes nodes created by the write and restores modified properties, and deletions of pre-existing nodes are never recoverable. This gives the agent precise expectations about what rollback can and cannot undo, beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by scope and irreversibility constraints. Every sentence carries useful information, and the checkpoint_id prerequisite is placed naturally at the end.

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?

Given the destructive annotations, complete input schema, and absence of an output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what rollback does, which write calls it covers, what it cannot restore, and where checkpoint_id comes from. No essential behavioral or usage context is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that checkpoint_id comes from a previous write call's response, but it does not add syntax or selection rules beyond what the schema already states. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is complete.

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 uses the specific verb 'Undo' and precisely scopes it to previous write calls, naming the sibling write tools it applies to. It also states exactly what is affected (created nodes removed, modified properties restored), so the agent can distinguish it from all other siblings.

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?

It clearly explains the intended context: undoing a previous figma_execute_code, figma_insert_component_instance, or figma_insert_svg call. It also states the prerequisite that every write call returns a checkpoint_id to pass here. It does not explicitly name when not to use it beyond the irrecoverable-deletion warning, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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