figma_delete_variable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it flags destructiveness, irreversibility (with the undo caveat), and the runtime dependency on the Desktop Bridge plugin. It omits what happens to variables referenced by aliases or bound nodes, which is the main remaining risk an agent would want to know.

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, the destructive warning immediately after, and prerequisites last. No filler; every sentence carries decision-relevant information.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, danger, prerequisite, and environment requirement. Only the post-condition (what is returned or what happens to dependent aliases) is left unstated, a minor gap at this complexity.

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% and the single parameter already explains the ID format and where to obtain it. The description only repeats the 'get IDs from figma_get_variables' pointer, adding no new semantics, 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Delete a Figma variable'), which an agent can distinguish from the similarly named figma_delete_variable_collection or figma_rename_variable. It does not explicitly call out the sibling boundary, but the naming plus the leading sentence leaves no real ambiguity.

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 gives a concrete precondition ('Use figma_get_variables first to get variable IDs') and an environment prerequisite (Desktop Bridge plugin running). It stops short of stating when not to use it, e.g. whether to prefer figma_update_variable or variable collections, but the practical guidance is clear.

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