figma-mcp-go

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

The description confirms the destructive nature implied by annotations by stating it 'Switch[es] the active Figma page,' explaining what state changes. However, it doesn't elaborate on the non-idempotent behavior (annotation: idempotentHint=false), potential side effects of page switching, or error handling when pages don't exist, leaving gaps despite the rich annotations provided.

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 consists of exactly two efficient sentences with zero redundancy: the first establishes the action, the second provides input guidance. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core verb and wastes no words.

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?

Given the simple parameter structure (two strings) and rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description adequately covers the core functionality. However, for a destructive navigation operation, it should mention failure modes (e.g., page not found) or whether the change persists across sessions, which would complete the picture without requiring an output schema.

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?

While the schema has 100% description coverage documenting the format of pageId ('colon format') and pageName ('Exact page name'), the description adds critical semantic information that these are alternatives ('either...or'), which the schema doesn't enforce (both are optional). This compensates for the schema's lack of XOR constraint logic.

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 clearly states the tool 'Switch[es] the active Figma page,' providing a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'get_pages' (which likely retrieves page metadata without changing the active view), leaving slight ambiguity about whether this performs navigation or just selection.

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 input constraints ('Provide either pageId or pageName'), clarifying the XOR relationship between identifiers. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., whether the page must exist in the current document), or what happens if both parameters are provided.

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