Export frames to PDF

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

With readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint already declared, the description still adds real behavior: rendering is done plugin-side and merging bridge-side, ordering is preserved, and unrenderable frames are surfaced in failed[] with no silent substitution. The gap is that the result shape and session-selection behavior are only partially characterized, and with no output schema the description carries that burden.

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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core behavior and then the deck-mode special case and failure policy. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is redundant with the title 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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering, the deck variant, and the failure contract (failed[]), which is what an agent most needs. It stops short of enumerating the full return payload or session disambiguation rules, leaving a small completeness gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; every parameter (deck, nodeIds, session, outputPath, includeSkipped) is already documented inline. The description mostly restates the schema's semantics (nodeIds ordering, deck override, includeSkipped skip handling) rather than adding new syntax or format detail.

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 (export), resource (frames), and output format (one multi-page PDF, one frame per page), and explicitly names the ordering source (nodeIds). It is readily distinguishable from sibling exporters like figma_export_node, figma_save_screenshots, and figma_export_video because it names the multi-page PDF artifact.

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?

It gives a clear conditional rule for the deck-vs-nodeIds fork ('In a Figma Slides file, deck: true instead exports every slide'), which is the main usage decision. However, it never names alternative export tools (figma_export_node, figma_save_screenshots) or states when NOT to use this tool, so guidance is contextual but not routing-complete.

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