Create or reorder pages in the open Figma file by providing a list of page names. Existing pages are reused, and the default empty page is renamed.
Create (or reorder) pages in the open Figma file, in the given order. Existing pages with the same name are reused; an empty default page is renamed instead of kept.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pages | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: same-named pages are reused (idempotent-ish) and an empty default page is renamed rather than kept. However, it is silent on whether pages omitted from the list are deleted, whether reordering is destructive, or what permissions are required — significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope; the behavioral caveat follows without padding. Every clause earns its place.
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 single-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers ordering and reuse but leaves the critical question of what happens to pages not listed unanswered. An agent could call it correctly but might cause unintended page loss.
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% for the single 'pages' array, so the description must compensate. It conveys ordering semantics ("in the given order") and name-matching behavior, which is genuinely useful, but omits the 1–40 item bounds and the per-item minLength constraint that the schema declares silently.
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 pair (create/reorder) and resource (pages) scoped to the open Figma file, plus the ordering constraint. It does not name or contrast with any sibling tool, but no sibling obviously overlaps with page creation, so an agent can identify its role.
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 never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives, nor states prerequisites such as needing a file open or an authenticated session. The reuse/rename clause hints at behavior but is not framed as usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.