figma_get_node_parent

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

Annotations already indicate safe read operation (readOnlyHint, idempotent). The description adds behavioral detail: it returns sibling children along with the parent, including IDs and positions, which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, efficiently front-loaded with the action and value, and contains no unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description suitably indicates return data (parent and siblings with IDs and positions). For a read-only query tool with thorough annotations, this is fairly complete, though it could note if any edge cases exist.

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?

The input schema has a single required parameter 'nodeId' with 0% documentation coverage. The description implicitly refers to it as 'a node' but does not explain the parameter's format or constraints. With no schema description, the tool should provide more parameter guidance.

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 it gets the parent of a node, including sibling children with IDs and positions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like figma_get_node_children, which retrieves children, not the parent.

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 advises using it to understand layout context or verify sibling order, providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for selection among siblings.

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