Save screenshots

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the write-path rules (bridge writes, relative paths land in the export directory, other folders must be under BRIDGE_EXPORT_ROOTS) and partial-failure semantics ('One node failing does not lose the others: the result carries failed[]'). It doesn't describe the full return payload shape, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and rationale, then the path rules and failure behavior, with no filler sentences. Slightly dense with parenthetical detail but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly covers the return (paths) and the failure channel (failed[]), and explains the cross-cutting path constraints. It leaves return-value details like ordering or exact failed[] entry shape implicit, so not a full 5.

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 already 100% (baseline 3), and the description adds real meaning by explaining how the dir parameter resolves paths and what constitutes a valid destination. The scale/format/session params are left entirely to the schema, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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+resource+scope ('Render several nodes to image files and return their paths'), and the word 'several' plus the reference to figma_export_node's saveTo distinguishes it from the single-node export sibling. An agent can identify it as the batch-export tool without opening a schema.

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?

Provides clear context ('the way to hand a user a set of screenshots', cheaper than returning image data) that tells the agent when to prefer this over returning inline image data. It does not, however, state explicit when-not conditions or fully name alternatives like figma_export_frames_to_pdf or figma_download_assets, so it falls short of a 5.

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