Permanently delete a component property from a Figma component or set by providing its node ID and full property name.
Delete a component property. Works with BOOLEAN, TEXT, INSTANCE_SWAP, and SLOT properties (not VARIANT). This is a destructive operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeId | Yes | The component or component set node ID | |
| propertyName | Yes | The full property name with suffix (e.g., 'Show Icon#123:456') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.46.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that this is destructive and which property types are valid. It stops short of stating irreversibility, what happens to instances bound to the deleted property, or any 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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the type scope, then the risk warning. No wasted 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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, valid property types, and the destructive nature. Only irreversibility/instance-impact detail is missing, which is minor here.
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 (nodeId, propertyName) are already documented in the schema, including the suffix format example. The description adds no additional per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (Delete) and resource (component property), and further scopes it with the supported property types (BOOLEAN, TEXT, INSTANCE_SWAP, SLOT) while excluding VARIANT. This clearly distinguishes it from the add/edit component property 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?
The type restriction ('not VARIANT') implies when the tool is applicable, and the naming makes the add/edit alternatives apparent. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus figma_edit_component_property or any prerequisite/confirmation guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.