figma_switch_page

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects such as viewport changes, selection impact, or error behavior when a page is not found. Only the basic action is stated.

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 a single, well-front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words, making it maximally concise and easy to parse.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description lacks usage context, parameter interaction rules, and behavioral details. For a tool with three optional parameters and no annotations or output schema, this minimal explanation is adequate but leaves ambiguities that could affect correct invocation.

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?

The description maps the parameters to 'name, ID, or index', which aligns with the schema property names and gives basic semantics. However, it does not clarify precedence when multiple parameters are supplied, whether they are mutually exclusive, or constraints on the index value, which is a gap given the 0% schema description coverage.

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 the specific verb 'switch' with the resource 'page' and clearly lists the three identification methods (name, ID, or index), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like create_page or get_viewport.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It is a bare statement without contextual usage advice.

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