figma_remove_interactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that removing all interactions is destructive, whether it is reversible, if it affects connected flows/prototypes, or if any permissions are required. The word 'Remove' implies mutation, but safety-related context is entirely absent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool with one parameter, communicating the core action immediately.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is minimally viable: it states the action and target. However, it omits any caveats about destructive side effects, reversibility, or relationship to other interaction-related tools, leaving the agent without important operational context.

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 schema lists a single parameter `nodeId` with no description, and the tool description does not explain it either. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate by clarifying what `nodeId` refers to or how it should be formatted.

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 a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('all interactions from a node'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like `figma_create_interaction` or `figma_get_interactions`. It unambiguously states the scope (all interactions) and target (a 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. While the purpose is clear, the agent is left to infer context (e.g., when a node has interactions to remove).

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