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 by clarifying the scope of destruction: only the group container is removed while children are preserved and reparented. This explains the structural side effects beyond the annotation flag. Does not mention error handling for invalid node types.

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?

Single sentence of 12 words with zero waste. Front-loaded with the action verb 'Ungroup' and immediately qualifies the scope. The second clause efficiently explains the dual mechanical effect (reparenting + removal) without redundancy.

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 presence of annotations covering safety profile (destructive, non-idempotent) and 100% schema coverage, the description adequately explains the core operation mechanics. Minor gap: does not specify behavior when non-GROUP node IDs are passed, though openWorldHint=true suggests external validation.

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 nodeIds parameter, the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'one or more' which aligns with the array type, but adds no additional syntax details, validation rules, or format clarification beyond what the schema already provides ('colon format').

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 ('Ungroup') with clear resource targeting ('GROUP nodes') and explains the structural outcome ('moving their children to the parent and removing the group'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like group_nodes (inverse operation) and delete_nodes (which would destroy children rather than reparenting them).

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 implies usage constraints by specifying 'GROUP nodes' and explaining that children are preserved (moved to parent), which guides selection over delete_nodes. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use' guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives like group_nodes for the reverse operation.

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