figma_export_json

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only partly meets it: it does disclose the disk-write side effect and that a path plus summary come back, and it explains the 'auto' fallback behavior. It omits what happens on an existing file (overwrite/error), permission requirements, and any size or rate limits on large node exports.

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 the action and return value front-loaded, followed by the format semantics. No filler, though the format clause could be split for scannability.

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?

Absent an output schema, the description correctly states the return shape (path plus short summary) and the file-writing destination. It is nearly complete for a 3-parameter exporter; only failure/overwrite semantics and any export size constraints are unaddressed.

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?

The 'rest', 'compact', and 'auto' enum values carry no schema descriptions, and the description supplies their meaning precisely (JSON_REST_V1 vs trimmed tree with resolved names vs rest-with-fallback). nodeId and outPath are already documented in the schema at 67% coverage, so the added value is concentrated on the enum.

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 (export full JSON of a node) plus the output side effect (writes to disk, returns path and summary). It is distinguishable from figma_export_image by the JSON payload, though it never contrasts itself with figma_get_tree, the closest sibling for reading node structure.

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 guidance on when to prefer this over figma_get_tree (in-memory tree) or the image exporters, nor any note on prerequisites such as file scope or node validity. Usage must be inferred purely from the tool name.

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