Reorder slides by providing a new 2D array of slide IDs, where each inner array represents a grid row; this is a destructive operation.
Reorder slides by providing a new 2D array of slide IDs. Each inner array represents a row in the grid. WARNING: This is a destructive operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grid | Yes | 2D array of slide IDs representing the new order, e.g. [['1:2','1:3'],['1:4']] |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.46.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does flag 'WARNING: This is a destructive operation', which is genuinely useful. But it leaves the critical semantics unexplained: what happens to slides omitted from the 2D array (deleted, hidden, or preserved), whether existing grids are fully replaced, and whether write permissions are required.
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 sentences, zero waste, with the operation and mechanism front-loaded and the destructive warning at the end where it is most visible.
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 destructive, single-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it conveys the shape of the input and that data is at risk, but omits the omission/rollback semantics an agent needs to call it safely.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by explaining that each inner array is a row in the grid, which the schema only conveys through a single example. It still doesn't say whether the array must contain every slide ID.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Reorder slides' with the mechanism ('providing a new 2D array of slide IDs'). An agent can distinguish this from figma_get_slide_grid or figma_list_slides, though it never names a sibling or clarifies how it differs from node-level movement (figma_move_node).
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?
Usage is implied by the verb and by the destructive warning, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over figma_get_slide_grid + a different approach, and no stated preconditions (e.g. whether the slide grid must be read first, or whether the slide view mode matters).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.