export_mappings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the produced artifact and its location, which is real behavioral value, but says nothing about whether it overwrites an existing file, what permissions it needs, or whether it touches anything beyond the local mappings file.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the qualifier last; nothing is wasted and the artifact path is surfaced immediately.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is nearly sufficient: it names the artifact produced and the purpose. The only meaningful omission is overwrite/permission behavior, which an agent might want before running an export.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents projectRoot. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

Specific verb 'Export' paired with a concrete resource and even the exact artifact path (.smart-figma/mappings.json), so the agent knows precisely what is produced. It reads as the inverse of the sibling import_mappings, though that relationship is implied rather than named.

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 parenthetical '(for team sharing or migration)' hints at the intent, which implies usage, but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over import_mappings or whether any prerequisites exist. Adequate but leaves the routing decision to inference.

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