export_frames_to_disk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the auth requirement (FIGMA_TOKEN), that it goes through the REST API, and that output lands in a folder inside the figma-write-bridge repo rather than an arbitrary location. It omits overwrite behavior, rate limits, and error semantics for a disk-writing side effect.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and mode selection before the output-location detail. No filler, though the parenthetical auth note could be folded in more tightly.

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 7-parameter export tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the workflow and destination but never states what the call returns (paths? manifest? confirmation), nor how scale/fileNamePrefix affect results. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains nodeIds and pageId and implies the format values ('PNG/JPG/SVG/PDF') and the output folder for localPath. But scale, fileNamePrefix, and fileKey get no semantic treatment, leaving nearly half the parameters undocumented.

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 (bulk-export), resource (frames from a Figma file), and destination (local disk), plus the transport (REST API). The word 'bulk' implicitly separates it from the single-node export_node_as_image sibling, so an agent can pick it without opening the 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 explicit selection logic between two input modes: 'Pass nodeIds, or pass pageId to export all top-level frames on a page.' That resolves the main ambiguity an agent faces. It stops short of naming alternatives (export_node_as_image, download_figma_images) or stating when NOT to use this tool.

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