figma_navigate

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It hints that selection changes (a stateful side effect) but does not say whether this alters the user's current selection destructively, whether reveal scrolls/zooms the viewport, whether a page switch is required, or what happens with invalid node IDs. For a state-changing navigation tool with zero structured hints, this is a substantial gap.

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 single short sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, which is good. But its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency — there is almost no information an agent can act on.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but that is the only relief. With four required parameters, a nested scope object, and no annotations or parameter docs, the definition leaves an agent unable to invoke the tool confidently — it does not say how selection and reveal interact or what state is required beforehand.

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 0% across five parameters, including a required nested 'scope' object (sessionId, connectionGeneration) and the boolean 'select'/'reveal' pair. The description only loosely gestures at 'nodeIds' and 'select'; it never explains what reveal does, when pageId is needed, or what the scope/generation values mean. It does not compensate for the documentation gap.

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 names a verb ('переход' / navigate) and a resource ('узлы' / nodes) plus a secondary effect ('изменение выделения' / changing selection), so the general intent is inferable. However, it never distinguishes this from the many read-oriented siblings (figma_get_nodes, figma_find_nodes, figma_get_context), leaving ambiguity about whether this only moves the viewport or actually mutates state.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text whether it should call figma_navigate versus figma_get_nodes to bring a node into view, nor when navigation is appropriate versus simply reading node data.

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