download_figma_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals only that the Figma REST API is used; it does not say that files are written to localPath, whether existing files are overwritten, what auth/permissions are needed, or how format selection works.

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 clean sentence with no waste and the action front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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 write-to-disk tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine how to select a format, what localPath semantics are, or how the nodes array maps to downloaded files.

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 0% across 4 parameters, and the description compensates for none of them. fileKey, nodes (with its nested nodeId/fileName/imageRef/cropTransform fields), localPath, and pngScale are all left completely unexplained, including how the image format is chosen.

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 (Download) plus the resource (SVG/PNG/GIF images used in a Figma file) and even the mechanism (Figma REST API). It is clear what the tool does, though it never differentiates itself from near-siblings like export_node_as_image or export_frames_to_disk.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With several closely related export/download siblings in the toolset, the agent is left to guess which one applies, and no prerequisites or context are stated.

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