rename_page

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive write operation. The description adds context that only the name is changed, node id and contents remain unaffected, and specifies the return format ({ ok, nodeId }). This goes beyond annotations.

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 description is two sentences: first states the action and resource, second adds behavioral nuance and an alternative. Every sentence is justified and no redundant information.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, usage guidance, and return format. It is fully informative given the tool's complexity and available structured fields.

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 100%, so the description's role is minimal. It briefly mentions 'by id' and 'new page name', but adds no constraints or format details beyond what the schema provides. Adequate given completeness.

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 ('a Figma page'), and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'rename_node' by clarifying scope (top-level page vs layer). This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly directs the user to 'rename_node instead' for layers, providing clear guidance on when to use an alternative. It implies the primary use case (renaming pages) but does not list exhaustive exclusion criteria.

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