download_figma_images

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions URL-format support and node-id parameters, without explaining whether images are returned as binary data, saved to disk, how multiple nodes are handled, or what happens on auth errors. This is minimal transparency for an external API side-effecting operation.

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?

The description is a single focused sentence that leads with the action and resource, then adds only the necessary URL-format detail. There is no redundant filler or restatement of schema properties.

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?

All parameters are documented and the tool is fairly simple, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify what 'download' returns and how node selection resolves. The schema covers the node-id fallback, so the remaining gap is mainly delivery and error behavior.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of all five parameters, so the baseline is 3 even with no additional parameter details in the description. The description's URL-format and node-id notes add no meaning beyond what the schema already states for figmaUrl and nodeIds.

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 action ('Download images from Figma designs'), identifies the required credentials (access token) and target (file URL), and clarifies supported URL forms. Even without sibling tools to distinguish, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 description implies its use for exporting images from Figma but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions. Since there are no sibling tools, the lack of alternatives is less damaging, but an agent is not told when choosing this tool is preferable to manual export or another download approach.

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