Permanently deletes a Figma local variable and removes its binding from nodes. Cannot be undone through this tool.
DESTRUCTIVE: permanently delete a local variable. Nodes bound to it lose the binding. Cannot be undone through this tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| variableId | Yes | ID of the variable 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 the full burden and does well: it flags permanence, irreversible-through-this-tool, and the side effect that bound nodes lose their binding. It stops short of permissions, error behavior (e.g., failure on bound variables), or return value, so not a 5.
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?
Three short clauses, front-loaded with the DESTRUCTIVE warning, then the side effect, then irreversibility. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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 delete tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, destruction scope, and reversibility adequately. It omits permission requirements and error scenarios, a minor gap against such a simple surface.
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?
There is one parameter, variableId, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format, ID-source, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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) and resource (local variable), and the word 'local' plus the singular resource distinguishes it from the sibling delete_variable_collection. An agent can route correctly without opening the 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 destructive framing implies when it should be used (removing a variable), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative such as delete_variable_collection for collection-level removal. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.