figma_navigate

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full load and does so well: it enumerates the three outcomes (already-active confirmation, switch to matching plugin, no-match guidance) and explains that local mode is WebSocket-only. It stops short of covering malformed-URL handling or what an invalid/non-Figma URL does, which is the remaining gap for a zero-annotation 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?

Behavior is front-loaded in the first paragraph and the pinning semantics are isolated in a second, so an agent scanning for routing logic finds it immediately. The lock paragraph is prose-heavy and could be tightened, but no sentence is filler.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers preconditions, all three return outcomes, and the full lifecycle of the one non-obvious parameter. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3 — but the description genuinely adds meaning to `lock` beyond the schema: the parallel-work rationale (agent edits one file, user works in another) and the release conditions (switching files, lock: false, or the pinned file disconnecting). These lifecycle semantics are not obvious from a boolean field name alone.

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 and resource — 'Switch the active Figma file target' — plus the precondition that the Desktop Bridge plugin must already be running. It also names the sibling it is not ('this tool does NOT launch a browser or open files'), so an agent can distinguish it from figma_reconnect or figma_list_open_files without reading schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use figma_list_open_files to enumerate connected files, use this tool to switch among them, and expect remediation guidance when no plugin matches the URL. It also carves out the parallel-work scenario as the reason to pass lock: true, which is a genuine when-to-use rule.

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