export_node_as_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the base64-vs-disk tradeoff, the auto-save fallback when the payload exceeds the MCP result cap (returning a path under exports/), and the platform/format restriction for video. It does not mention permission requirements or error behavior, but the core behavioral traits of an export operation are covered.

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 tight sentences with purpose front-loaded, then the localPath recommendation, then the fallback behavior, then the video constraint. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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?

No output schema or annotations, so the description must stand alone; it covers output handling (base64 vs disk path), the size-cap fallback, and the video platform constraint. It leaves gaps around scale semantics and failure modes, but is largely sufficient for calling the 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 coverage is 57%, so the description must partially compensate. It adds real meaning for format (enumerates all image and video options) and localPath (why to prefer it), but scale is undocumented in both schema and description, and fps/quality/loopCount get no elaboration beyond the schema text. Marginal value over structured data.

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 (export), resource (node), and the full output format set (PNG/JPG/SVG/PDF/MP4/GIF/WEBM), plus a scope qualifier ('top-level frame with Motion'). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts with close siblings like export_frames_to_disk or download_figma_images, so differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Offers guidance on parameter choice ('Prefer localPath so bytes are written to disk instead of returning base64') and one hard constraint ('Video export is only available in Figma Desktop for animated top-level frames'). However, it never says when to pick this tool over the export_frames_to_disk or download_figma_images siblings, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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