migrate_all_svgs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that this is a bulk filesystem-writing operation (outputDir), whether it overwrites existing files, whether it requires Figma auth, how it behaves on large files or failures, or what it returns. 'Automatically' hints at the traversal behavior but nothing about side effects or 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 no filler, and the bulk scope is front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but as structure goes it is clean.

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 no-annotation, file-writing, bulk export tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it omits where results go, what is returned, and error/partial-failure behavior. The schema supplies the parameter details, but the behavioral gap remains for an operation of this kind.

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%, with both fileId and outputDir (including its default) fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'all SVG icons from a Figma file' adds slight scoping context for fileId but no format or syntax 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?

The description states a specific verb (find and export) and resource (all SVG icons from a Figma file), and the word 'all' correctly distinguishes it from a single-item operation. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling export_svg, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone why it should pick this bulk tool over that one.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling tool (notably export_svg) is named as an alternative. The word 'Automatically' and 'all' imply a bulk workflow, but the agent is left to infer that from the adjective rather than being told.

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