figmad-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, it doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, how it affects parent/child nodes, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains zero redundant content, making it optimally concise for its purpose.

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 operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address critical context like what 'delete' means in Figma's document model, whether there are confirmation steps, what the response contains, or error conditions. The agent lacks necessary operational understanding.

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 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, earning a baseline 4 for not creating confusion about non-existent parameters.

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 the action ('Delete') and target resource ('a node from the Figma document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling operations like 'update_node' or 'get_node' beyond the basic verb difference.

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, prerequisites for deletion, or what constitutes a deletable node. With multiple sibling tools like 'get_node', 'update_node', and 'get_selection', there's no indication of workflow relationships or decision criteria.

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