download_design_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write-to-local-folder behavior and the source-mode routing, but says nothing about overwriting existing files, error/partial-failure behavior, or the shape of the result for a 5-parameter mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the core action and destination front-loaded and the source-routing rule following. Every clause 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 tool with no output schema and a nested items array, the description covers purpose, destination, and source-mode selection adequately. It stops short of describing return values or failure handling, but that gap is minor against the schema's field-level detail.

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 high (~80%), so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the semantic distinction between the 'plugin' and 'rest' source modes and ties url/fileKey specifically to the rest path. This goes beyond the schema's terse per-field descriptions.

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 (download icons, illustrations, image fills from Figma) plus destination (local folder) and rationale (so generated code can reference them). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like export_node_as_image, which renders a single node rather than batch-downloading referenced assets.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use source 'plugin' for designs read with get_design_context, or 'rest' (with url/fileKey) for designs read with get_figma_design_from_url. The condition and the relevant alternatives are named directly, leaving little to inference.

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