figma-mcp-go

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

While annotations declare destructiveHint=true, the description adds critical behavioral context that the operation 'cannot be undone via MCP'—specific irreversibility semantics not captured in structured fields. It does not contradict annotations (destructiveHint matches 'Delete').

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 with zero waste: first states the action, second provides the critical safety warning. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a single-parameter destructive tool.

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?

Sufficient for a destructive single-parameter tool without output schema. Covers the essential risk (irreversibility) and references the bulk nature ('one or more'). Could enhance by noting behavior regarding child nodes or references given openWorldHint=true, but not strictly required.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the nodeIds parameter format ('colon format e.g. ['4029:12345']'). The description mentions 'one or more nodes' but adds no syntax or semantic details beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.

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 clear specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('nodes'), explicitly distinguishing this from sibling creation tools (create_frame, create_text, etc.) and retrieval tools (get_node, get_nodes_info).

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?

Provides a safety warning ('use with care') and notes irreversibility ('cannot be undone via MCP'), which implies cautious usage. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling deletion alternatives like delete_style or detach_instance.

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