figma_export_node

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: not whether the export writes a file, returns base64/blob data, where output goes, or any size/rate limits. The only behavioral hint is the format choice, which the enum already conveys.

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 short sentence with no filler, appropriately front-loaded. It is concise to the point of under-specification rather than verbose.

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?

With a nested scope object, a scale multiplier, zero schema coverage, and no annotations, the definition leaves an agent guessing about required session state and output handling. The presence of an output schema excuses it from describing return values, but the invocation-side gaps remain substantial.

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 0% across four parameters, including a nested 'scope' object with sessionId and connectionGeneration and an unexplained 'scale'. The description only restates the enum values for 'format' and vaguely gestures at nodeId with 'выбранного узла', adding no meaning for scale or the session scope.

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 and resource ('Экспорт выбранного узла') plus the two output formats, so an agent can immediately tell this renders a node to an image. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from read-oriented siblings like figma_get_nodes, but the export framing is distinctive enough.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a prior figma_find_nodes/figma_get_nodes call to obtain a nodeId. The agent must infer that this is the terminal step of a node-inspection workflow.

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