render_node_png

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return format (base64-encoded image data), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about authentication requirements, whether figmaUrl or fileId+nodeId is preferred, size or scale limits, or error behavior on an invalid node.

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 no filler; the verb and resource lead. It is efficient, though it leans toward under-specification rather than waste given the tool's practical gotchas.

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 4-parameter tool with zero required params and no output schema, the description covers the essentials (what is exported, output format) but omits a critical practical point: that the agent must supply either figmaUrl or fileId+nodeId for the call to work. Addressing that redundancy would round out an otherwise adequate definition.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters (scale, fileId, nodeId, figmaUrl) including the colon node format and the alternative-to-figmaUrl relationship. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource+output: 'Export a specific Figma node as PNG and return base64-encoded image data.' An agent immediately knows this produces a raster image of one node. It does not name or distinguish itself from the close sibling export_svg, which is the one tool it could be confused with.

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 conditions, and no mention of alternatives. Given sibling export_svg handles vector export and verify_render/list_svg_cache exist nearby, the agent must infer when raster PNG is preferable. Nothing tells it when not to use this tool.

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