figma_screenshot

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses that rendering happens via the browser's Copy-as-PNG, that the system clipboard is untouched, that the live file is used, and that the return includes a note naming the Figma account. It doesn't cover auth requirements or failure modes, but the added context is substantial.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and mechanism; the parenthetical about the clipboard preempts an obvious false assumption, and 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 usefully describes the return (image downscaled to max_dimension plus an account-identifying note). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, it is nearly complete, though auth/login expectations go unmentioned.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds the downscaling semantics for max_dimension and the shape of the returned note, but says nothing about save_path or node_id beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (render a node to PNG) and immediately scopes it: browser-based 'Copy as PNG' on the live file, not the snapshot. This distinguishes it from snapshot-based siblings like figma_load_file and from figma_export_image_fills without opening any 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?

The phrase 'Uses the live file, not the snapshot' tells the agent when this tool is the right choice versus snapshot-reading siblings, and the clipboard note clarifies the mechanism. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool or an exclusion, 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.