rename_page

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

Annotations already indicate it's not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it affects only the page name, leaves node id and contents unchanged, and returns { ok, nodeId }. This goes beyond the bare mutation flag and helps the agent understand side effects.

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 concise sentences that front-load the main action and scope, followed by a sibling pointer and return value. No wasted words, well-structured.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description provides the return shape and explicitly scopes the effect. This is complete for the tool's complexity and structured context.

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% for both parameters (pageId and name), so the schema already handles parameter meaning. The description adds minimal semantic nuance ('by id') but doesn't compensate or contradict; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('rename') and resource ('Figma page'), clarifies it's a top-level page/tab, and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool rename_node for canvas layers. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly states when to use this tool (top-level pages) and provides an explicit alternative ('To rename a layer/node on the canvas use rename_node instead'). It also notes the scope of the operation, which helps the agent decide between similar tools.

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