figma_move_frames_to_page

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

Annotations already declare mutation, non-destructive, non-idempotent and closed-world. The description adds context annotations can't carry: canvas position is preserved and the move changes prototype-destination eligibility. It still doesn't cover what happens to a frame already on the target page or partial-failure behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, followed by the prerequisite and the nodeIds caveat. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 mutating, non-idempotent tool with annotations and no output schema, this covers the essential behavior and constraints. Remaining gaps are edge cases (re-running on already-moved frames, cross-file behavior) rather than blockers.

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 67% and nodeIds has no description. The description compensates by narrowing nodeIds to "exact FRAME IDs" and adding a real constraint not in the schema: never include a frame together with its ancestor.

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+resource+scope: move exact FRAME IDs out of containers onto the current page. It also gives the downstream effect (screens become eligible as prototype destinations), which separates it from siblings like figma_update_nodes or figma_connect_screens.

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?

"Read the document first" implies a prerequisite step (figma_document) and the ancestor/frame exclusion is a clear usage constraint. It stops short of naming the sibling tools explicitly or saying when to prefer a different move/update operation.

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