figma_export_animation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it discloses the write destination and its default (OS temp folder), that the resulting path is returned, and an explicit non-destructive guarantee ('never replaced unless overwrite is true'). It omits any mention of plugin/mode prerequisites or failure conditions, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is produced, then the input constraint, then the side effects. Every sentence carries information not present in the structured fields; there is no filler.

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 an 11-parameter export tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value ('the path is returned') and the destructive-behavior question. Format-specific defaults (fps, quality, loopCount) are left to the schema, which documents them well, so nothing critical is missing.

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 91%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for nodeId (must be the top-level frame that owns the Motion timeline, not an arbitrary child), for outputPath's default, and for overwrite's effect. Those are the higher-risk parameters and the description explains them better than the schema does.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb (Export) and resource (an animated frame) plus the exact output formats (MP4, GIF, WebM), which cleanly separates it from the static-capture siblings like figma_take_screenshot and figma_capture_screenshot. The second sentence narrows the input object to the frame holding the Motion timeline.

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?

It states the precondition that the node must be the top-level frame holding the Motion timeline, which is real invocation guidance. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with the screenshot/capture siblings, so an agent must infer that this is the video-only path rather than being told.

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