import_design_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that the file is copied into a local snapshot store, that an earlier snapshot of the same frames is replaced (overwrite/idempotency semantics), and that the source file and the Figma file are left unchanged. It also states the failure mode for non-export JSON. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for an unannotated tool.

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?

Four sentences, all of which carry information, with the core purpose front-loaded before the operational details. It is slightly denser than needed but there is no padding or 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?

For a one-parameter, unannotated tool with no output schema, the description covers mutation semantics, source safety, and failure behavior, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of describing what the call returns (e.g., a snapshot handle) that would be read back later, which is the only meaningful remaining gap.

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% and the sole parameter already documents itself as 'Absolute path of the export JSON file.' The description adds context about what that JSON should contain ('frames with node trees, as the plugin produces'), but no new syntactic or format guidance. Baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (import a design export JSON as a snapshot) and explains the payoff ('so its nodes can be read without the plugin'). It explicitly separates itself from the sibling that produces such exports ('an export made earlier with save_design_export or the plugin'). An agent can distinguish it from save_design_export without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context for when to reach for it ('Use it for an export made earlier with save_design_export or the plugin') and names the failure condition ('Fails if the JSON is not a design export'). It does not spell out an explicit when-not-to-use case or a preferred alternative for other situations, 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.