export_video

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

Despite readOnlyHint: true, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it is a heavy render that should be called alone, failure modes are clearly described (path:null with a reason, and Figma's own error when reason is 'failed'), and prerequisites are stated. These details go beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, node selection, prerequisites/failure modes, concurrency warning, and return shape. It is slightly wordy in the middle section listing failure cases, but generally well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 description covers all critical operational aspects: input requirements, output formats, failure conditions, performance constraints, and the returned object shape. With no output schema, it fully communicates what the agent can expect, making it complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 already has 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters. The tool description reinforces the nodeId semantics ('Pass any node in the frame or the frame itself') but does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 verb 'Export' and the specific resource: 'an animated Figma top-level frame' to targeted output formats ('MP4 / WebM / GIF file on disk'). It also details the node-acceptance nuance (any node in the frame or the frame itself), which differentiates it from sibling export tools like export_pdf.

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 provides explicit context on when to use the tool (requires Figma Design editor and animated content) and when not to use it (static frame, nested frame, FigJam, Dev Mode all yield path:null). It also warns against concurrent calls. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools like export_pdf for static exports, so it falls short of a 5.

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