Deletes a local text, paint, effect, or grid style by ID. Nodes using it keep current values but are detached.
Delete a local style (text, paint, effect or grid) by ID. Nodes using it keep their current values but are detached.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| styleId | Yes | ID of the style to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, and it delivers the key non-obvious trait: dependent nodes 'keep their current values but are detached' rather than being modified or deleted. It omits irreversibility/permission details, but the disclosure of the detachment side effect is the most important behavior for this mutation.
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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the consequential side effect second. Every clause 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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and the important side effect on dependent nodes. Remaining gaps (whether deletion is recoverable, behavior on an unknown ID) are minor for a tool of this simplicity.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single required styleId parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description's 'by ID' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema baseline.
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?
States a specific verb (Delete), a precise resource (local style), and enumerates the style subtypes it covers (text, paint, effect, grid) plus the lookup key (ID). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like delete_node, delete_variable, and create_text_style without opening any schema.
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 ('delete ... by ID') but offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no prerequisites, and it doesn't reference any alternative sibling such as get_styles for discovery. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.