figma_download_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states what endpoints are involved, with no mention of whether this is a read-only operation, whether export URLs require asynchronous rendering, or how omitted nodeIds and includeImageFills affect the result. The nodeIds behavior is mentioned only in the parameter schema, not in the description.

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 one compact sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the core purpose ('Export URLs'). The endpoint references add precision, though the wording is slightly stilted and could be clearer to an agent unfamiliar with Figma API conventions.

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 six parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves important operational details undefined. It does not explain possible combinations of url, fileKey, nodeIds, scale, and format, nor what the response shape is. An agent would likely need to open schemas or rely on trial and error to invoke this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 67%, with url, fileKey, nodeIds, and includeImageFills already explained in the schema. The description adds endpoint context and the notion of 'image fills,' but does not meaningfully elaborate on scale or format beyond what their constraints and enum already convey. This is an adequate but not exceptional contribution.

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 names a concrete action ('Export') and specific resources ('URLs' and 'image fills'), and references the underlying Figma GET endpoints. This makes the tool's purpose reasonably clear and helps it stand apart from siblings like figma_get_file and figma_get_screenshot, though it could be phrased more plainly.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it never names sibling tools or exclusion conditions. The endpoint references imply an asset-export use case, but an agent is left to infer when this should be chosen over figma_get_screenshot or figma_get_file.

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