figma_export_to_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the plugin bridge mechanism, REST API fallback, and the fact that it writes to a local path, but it omits potential failure modes (e.g., when neither plugin connection nor fileKey is available), file overwrite behavior, and return semantics.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, followed by concise supporting details (formats, plugin bridge/REST behavior) and helpful examples. It is slightly longer due to examples, but every sentence adds useful implementation context.

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?

The description plus schema supports basic invocation: required params are clear, optional params are exemplified, and plugin/REST behavior is stated. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves out return values, failure conditions, and a fully explicit precondition for when the plugin bridge vs REST path applies, making it minimally viable rather than complete.

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 60%, and the description partially compensates with an explicit format list and examples showing format and scale usage. However, it does not explain the meaning of scale beyond schema constraints and does not demonstrate fileKey usage, leaving some gaps beyond what the schema provides.

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 it exports a Figma node as an image file saved to a local path, names a specific verb and resource, and lists supported formats (PNG, JPG, SVG, PDF). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like figma_export_png and figma_export_svg by emphasizing local file output and multi-format support.

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 description provides useful context about plugin bridge vs REST API fallback and when fileKey is needed, but it does not explicitly compare this tool with alternatives such as figma_export_png or figma_export_svg. It implies usage for file-based exports but lacks clear when-not or alternative guidance.

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