Talk to Figma MCP

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 states the tool deletes nodes, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't mention whether deletions are permanent, reversible, require specific permissions, or have rate limits. It also doesn't describe the response format or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical information about behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, permissions), usage context, and expected outcomes. Given the complexity of deleting multiple nodes in a design tool, more completeness is needed to guide safe and effective use.

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 100% description coverage, with 'nodeIds' clearly documented as an array of node IDs to delete. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples, constraints, or relationships to other tools. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 multiple nodes') and resource ('from Figma'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling 'delete_node' by specifying 'multiple nodes at once', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other sibling tools like 'move_node' or 'resize_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'delete_node' for single deletions, or how it relates to other destructive operations like 'move_node' or 'resize_node'. The description offers no context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases.

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