Create page

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

Annotations already declare it as a non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive write, so the bar is lower; the description nonetheless adds real context: the 3-page cap on free Starter files, the fact that Figma's own error is surfaced verbatim, and the plan-vs-bridge error provenance. That failure-mode and environment disclosure goes beyond the structured data.

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?

Very short, with no filler: the plan-cap warning, the error-provenance clarification, and the editor matrix each earn their place. The leading sentence fragment 'A new page.' is an awkward front-load but costs only a few words.

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?

No output schema exists, but for a mutation tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile, the description covers the important ambient constraints (plan cap, error behavior, editor support). It omits whether/how the new page affects the current selection or file layout, which is a modest gap.

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 coverage is 75%, with session, activate, and idempotencyKey all described in-schema, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no meaning about name (undocumented) or about how 'activate' interacts with the new page, so the baseline 3 fits.

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 opens with the fragment 'A new page.', which essentially restates the title 'Create page' rather than stating a verb + resource, and it never differentiates this from adjacent creation siblings like figma_create_slides or figma_create_section. The intent (create a page) is unambiguous once combined with the name/title, but the description itself contributes little.

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 'Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides' note gives implicit applicability guidance about where this call is safe, and the cap note tells you when it will fail. However, there is no when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance (e.g., use figma_get_pages to list, figma_navigate_page to switch) and no prerequisites stated beyond the plan cap.

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