export_node_as_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the operation and gives no details about return format (binary, URL, base64), permissions/exportability constraints, or how omitted optional parameters behave. This leaves the agent with significant uncertainty about the tool's actual behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential verb and object without unnecessary elaboration. The phrase 'from Figma' is slightly redundant but not distracting, and the overall structure is clean and immediately scannable.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not explain what is returned, what happens when optional parameters are omitted, or whether certain node types are exportable. The schema covers parameter names and enums, but key contextual details required for correct invocation are missing.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. It also adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the operation (export), the resource (a node), and the result (an image). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that read metadata or edit the document; no other sibling focuses on exporting a node as an image.

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 intended use is implied by the verb 'export' — use it when you need an image representation of a node. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternative tools, so the usage context remains implicit rather than fully explicit.

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