pages_switch

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds useful context that the tool changes the 'active canvas view' state, which implies a state mutation that persists. However, it doesn't state whether the switch is reversible, what happens on invalid index/ID, or if it requires the page to already exist. Some behavioral value, but notable gaps for a stateless-annotated 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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then states the target and rationale. No filler or redundancy.

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 2-parameter navigation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose adequately. However, given the absence of annotations, it should specify what happens on failure, whether the change persists, and whether pages must exist first, especially since siblings include pages_add and pages_list that imply page management workflows.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the 0-based indexing note and that pageId is an alternative. The description repeats that both 'page index' and 'page ID' are accepted but doesn't add format or precedence details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema fully documents parameters.

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 ('Switches') and resource ('active canvas view') plus the target ('a specific page index or page ID'), and it clarifies the downstream purpose ('so the AI agent can design on that page'). A reader can immediately distinguish it from siblings like pages_list or pages_add.

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 the usage context ('so the AI agent can design on that page'), which tells the agent this is a navigation prerequisite before designing on another page. But it does not explicitly say when to use index vs pageId, nor when to prefer this over alternatives. 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.