export_figma_compatible_json

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys the essential transformation — converting a Paper artboard hierarchy into Figma node schema JSON — but does not state whether the operation is non-mutating, how the JSON is delivered (inline payload, file artifact, URL), or what happens on invalid artboardId.

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?

A single 20-word sentence conveys action, resource, output format, and purpose with zero filler. The verb and target format are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the essentials adequately. The notable gap is the absent output schema combined with no return-value explanation — an agent cannot tell whether calling this tool returns the JSON text, writes a file, or produces a downloadable artifact, which is the central question for an export tool.

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%, with both 'artboardId' and 'fileId' already explained in the input schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already 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?

Begins with the specific verb 'Exports' followed by the resource ('Paper artboard hierarchy') and a precise output contract ('standardized Figma REST/Plugin node schema JSON'). The exact target format cleanly distinguishes this tool from generic siblings like 'export' and 'export_code' without needing to open their schemas.

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 clause 'for cross-tool interoperability' implies the intended scenario, and the Figma-specific output format signals when this tool applies. However, with numerous export-oriented siblings (export, export_code, batch_export_assets, export_combined_pdf, get_jsx, write_html), the description names no alternative and gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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