export_svg

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little beyond the existence of an optional save. It never says whether the SVG is returned inline or only written to disk, whether existing files are overwritten, or what permissions/access the Figma file requires.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the core action and the optional side effect are both stated immediately.

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 six-parameter tool that can write files to disk, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits return format (inline SVG vs. file path), side effects of saving, and any interaction between save, fileName, and outputDir.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only the 'optionally save' framing, which loosely maps to the save flag but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 (Export) and resource (a Figma node as SVG), which is concrete and distinguishable from the PNG-rendering sibling by format. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with render_node_png or the cache tools, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 'optionally save it' hints that a save mode exists, but there is no statement of when to choose this tool over render_node_png, the cache tools, or migrate_all_svgs. No prerequisites, conditions, or alternatives are named.

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