figma_export_image_fills

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that original bytes are preserved and files are named by imageHash, which is useful, but says nothing about where files land when outDir is omitted, overwrite behavior, required auth, or rate/size limits.

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 tight sentence with the resource and the output convention front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though slightly under-specified for a tool that writes files to disk.

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 annotations, no output schema, and half the parameters undocumented, the definition leaves key facts missing: the destination directory behavior and what the call returns on success or when no image fills exist. For a disk-writing export tool this is a notable 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 coverage is 50%: nodeId is documented in the schema, but outDir has no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no default directory, no path format), so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 (Save) and a precisely scoped resource: raster images used as IMAGE fills inside a given node. The parenthetical '(original bytes, named by imageHash)' further pins down what gets written, which implicitly separates it from the sibling figma_export_image, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, no prerequisites. An agent cannot tell from the text when this should be preferred over figma_export_image or figma_export_json, nor what happens if a node contains no IMAGE fills.

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