Go to page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Changes no design data' largely restates the safety profile. The one genuinely additive behavioral detail is that name matching must be exact (no fuzzy resolution), plus the implicit note that editor view state changes even though document data does not.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the lookup helper, then the safety note. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 simple navigation tool with no output schema this is nearly sufficient, but with zero required parameters the description never says the caller must supply pageId or pageName, nor what happens when an exact name is not found. Those omissions matter for correct invocation.

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 only 33% (only `session` is documented), so the description must carry the load — and it does, clarifying that pageId and pageName are alternative selectors and that the name must be exact. It still leaves the mutual-exclusivity/precedence rule and the fact that one of the two is effectively required (0 required params) unstated.

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 (switch) and resource (page) with the editor as target, which cleanly separates it from the many figma_create_* and figma_get_* siblings. It does not explicitly contrast itself with other navigation-ish siblings (figma_select, figma_zoom_to), so it falls short of a 5.

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 pointer 'figma_get_pages lists them' usefully implies the prerequisite lookup step, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over alternatives such as figma_select or figma_zoom_to, nor any exclusion or precondition beyond that hint. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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