download_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that outputs are saved under .figma/assets and that original image bytes can optionally be included, but it omits key behavior such as overwrite semantics, batch limits (20 nodeIds), selection fallback, and any permission or rate-limit concerns for a filesystem-writing operation.

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?

Two tight sentences with no waste. The core purpose and output location are front-loaded, and every clause adds practical 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?

For a five-parameter export tool that writes files to the workspace and has no annotations or output schema, the description is too thin. It should cover selection defaults, nodeIds batching, scale defaults, and overwrite/file-existence behavior to be complete enough for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is only 20%, with just nodeId documented in the schema. The description adds meaning for format choices and includeOriginalImages, but it does not explain scale (0.01–4), nodeIds batching, or the nodeId-vs-selection behavior, leaving most parameters underspecified.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Export nodes to workspace files' with supported formats PNG/JPG/SVG/PDF. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as upload_assets or get_screenshot.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like upload_assets, get_screenshot, or get_design_context. Usage is only implied by the word 'Export', with no conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites mentioned.

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