figma-mcp-go

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

The description specifies the four categories of styles that can be deleted, adding scope context beyond what the annotations provide. While annotations correctly flag the operation as destructive and non-idempotent, the description could enhance transparency by noting irreversibility or error behavior when invalid IDs are provided.

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 single-sentence description is front-loaded with the action verb 'Delete' and efficiently qualifies the resource type without extraneous words. The parenthetical enumeration of style types is information-dense and necessary for scope clarification, resulting in zero wasted space.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter input, comprehensive annotations covering safety hints, and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function. It appropriately omits return value descriptions while successfully conveying the core deletion capability and supported style categories.

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 for the styleId parameter ('Style ID to delete'), the schema already fully documents the input requirements. The description's reference to 'by its ID' aligns with but does not substantially augment the schema's semantic meaning, meeting the baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'Delete' paired with the resource 'style' and clarifies scope with the parenthetical '(paint, text, effect, or grid)'. This effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like delete_nodes and delete_variable by specifying it operates on style resources rather than document nodes or variables.

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 implicitly guides usage by defining what constitutes a deletable style (paint, text, effect, or grid), which helps differentiate it from delete_nodes or delete_variable. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus other style-related operations or prerequisites like obtaining the styleId first.

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