figma_export_node

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the PNG output format and a maximum edge of 4096 px, but it does not describe the return value or how scale affects export size.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and format are front-loaded, followed by the size constraint.

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 three-parameter export tool with no output schema and low schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits the return format, scale semantics, and nodeId expectations, leaving important invocation details undocumented.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain scale or nodeId, and targetDocumentId is only documented in the schema, not in the description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: export a node as PNG. It also gives a clear purpose, visual validation. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or explain why to choose this over figma_document, but the export action is distinct from the other listed tools.

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 phrase 'for visual validation' implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It also does not mention prerequisites such as obtaining the nodeId or targetDocumentId first.

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