export

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the default-settings policy but not the side effects of exporting, whether files are created/returned, or what happens to the document state. This is a significant gap for a tool that produces external artifacts.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a meaningful behavioral constraint without wasted words.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what a successful export returns or how an agent knows where the output went, nor does it mention fileId targeting or when to prefer sibling export tools. The rich schema covers parameter syntax, but the real-world invocation context is incomplete.

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 schema already provides detailed descriptions for type, nodes, and fileId, with about 67% coverage. The description adds no per-parameter meaning; its default-settings warning is already reflected in the schema's guidance to set nodes to an empty array for defaults.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Export nodes as image or video files.' This distinguishes it from most siblings like export_code, export_combined_pdf, and export_figma_compatible_json, though it does not explicitly name the closest alternatives.

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?

'Unless the user specifies, do not override the default export settings' gives an important conditional behavior. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of batch_export_assets or export_code, so alternative selection is largely implied rather than stated.

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