Render Figma node images

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that URLs are 'short-lived', which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention rate limits, output structure (e.g., map of IDs to URLs), or limits on node count, so it adds only modest value.

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 sentence plus a one-line sibling distinction, with the core endpoint and behavior front-loaded. Zero wasted words and the key differentiator is placed last for emphasis.

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?

The tool is simple; no output schema exists, but the description states the return format (image URLs) and default. It does not mention the alternative render_nodes_as_data_uri, which an agent might need to choose between, but the openWorldHint and readOnly annotations reduce the burden. Overall adequate.

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 100%, and the schema already documents all parameters including the normalization of IDs and format defaults. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema (e.g., explains 'short-lived' URLs but that's not parameter-specific). 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?

The description states a specific verb ('render'), resource ('nodes'), and output ('short-lived image URLs'), with a default format. It also explicitly names a sibling tool it is distinct from (get_image_fills), making it easy to differentiate without reading schemas.

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?

It clearly distinguishes from get_image_fills, but does not mention the alternative render_nodes_as_data_uri or other rendering tools. There is no explicit 'when not to use' beyond the one sibling, leaving some inference needed for an agent choosing between rendering options.

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