figma_export_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses return format (base64), format-specific behavior (SVG preserves vectors, PNG/JPG rasterize), and scale version change (v1.8.0 default scale=1 for safety). It could mention if any side effects occur, but as an export tool, it is likely read-only.

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 concise, consisting of 4 sentences front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence adds distinct information (formats, batching, authentication, format details, version history) without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 1 required) and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: formats, batch, scale, version note, and return type (base64). It omits error handling or performance details, but for an export tool the information is sufficient.

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 100% but description adds significant value: explains format differences, batch limit (max 50), default scale reasoning (context safety override), and SVG-specific parameters (outline text, include id). This enriches understanding beyond schema names and descriptions.

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 tool exports nodes in SVG, PNG, JPG, or PDF formats, returns base64 data, and supports batch export up to 50 nodes. It uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among siblings, which include creation, modification, and retrieval tools but no other export tool.

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 indicates when to use the tool (exporting nodes) and provides context like 'no REST API token needed' and 'uses plugin exportAsync'. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but given no sibling tools offer similar functionality, the guidance is clear.

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