Export Figma images / icons

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the core action (rendering to URLs, optional local save) and format selection, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects like file overwrites. It does not contradict any annotations.

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?

Two sentences: first explains core function and format hint, second adds optional local save. No wasted words, front-loaded, and efficiently covers key points.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the output (image URLs) and optional side effect (local save). It covers the main use case but could mention default behavior for nodeIds or format. Overall sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining format choice ('svg for icons/vectors, png for raster'), which is not in the schema. Schema already covers nodeIds, figmaUrl, and localDir with descriptions (60% coverage). The description enhances semantic understanding of the format parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's function: rendering node IDs to image URLs, with specific format guidance (svg for vectors, png for raster). The title 'Export Figma images / icons' reinforces this purpose, and the tool is distinct from siblings like 'get_figma_design' which likely retrieves design data, not images.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_figma_design' or 'convert_figma_to_react'. The description implies image export but does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it.

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