export_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real behavioral facts: without outputDir you get temporary download links that expire, and with outputDir files are written to disk and the folder is created if needed. It omits any mention of Figma API rate limits or required scopes, which matters for a rendering endpoint.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the two output modes, then the batching directive. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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 no output schema, the description usefully explains the two possible return shapes: expiring URLs or local paths. For a 5-parameter tool with 60% coverage, the gaps are format/scale semantics rather than anything that would cause a wrong call.

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 coverage is 60%, and outputDir is already described in the schema with nearly identical wording, so the description adds little there. The batching advice for nodeIds adds genuine semantic value, but format and scale are never mentioned, leaving the enum and range behavior undocumented outside 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 and resource: rendering one or more Figma nodes into images, with a clear scope. It is distinguishable from read-only siblings like get_node or get_node_tree, but it never explicitly names an alternative, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

It gives actionable invocation guidance: pass multiple nodeIds in a single call instead of repeated calls, a clear anti-pattern to avoid. It also explains the two operating modes (with/without outputDir), but it never says when to use export_image versus get_node or export_tokens.

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