figma_take_screenshot

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses the Desktop Bridge exportAsync path, plan compatibility, no REST token needed, runtime-state fidelity, and the REST API fallback including the PDF case. The one gap is that it never says what the tool returns (image payload vs URL vs base64), which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then backend behavior, then usage guidance, then the sibling routing note. Every sentence adds information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

It covers backend selection, fallback conditions, and when to use it against the main sibling, which is ample for a three-parameter export tool. The missing piece is the return value, which the description should mention because no output schema exists.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, and this sets the baseline at 3. The description only adds 'Pass nodeId to target specific elements,' which largely restates the schema.

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 and resource: 'Export an image of the current Figma page or specific node.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming figma_get_component_image for components, so an agent can tell the tools apart without opening either 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?

Clear usage context: 'Use for visual validation after design changes — check alignment, spacing, proportions,' plus a routing rule away from figma_get_component_image for components. It does not mention figma_capture_screenshot, the closest overlapping sibling — that comparison is only in the nodeId schema text, not the description.

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