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

Annotations already flag this as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety bar is partly cleared. The description adds useful output behavior (SVG text remains editable) and a cost signal ("Free"), but with idempotentHint=false it never says a new export is generated on each call or where/how the files are retrieved.

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 front-loaded sentence with the output format named first and elaboration after. Slightly padded by repeated promotional asides ("free Photopea", trailing "Free."), but nothing structurally wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the call returns — file URLs, an export job, or a packaged archive — which matters for a non-idempotent export. Inputs are fully covered by the schema, so the remaining gap is on the return side.

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 carousel_id, version_id, and the format enum are already documented, including the 'both' default. The description reinforces the per-slide, per-format output shape but adds no format-selection guidance or syntax beyond 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 (export) and resource (carousel) plus the exact artifact produced: one PSD and one SVG per slide, with each element as a separate layer. It is unmistakable against siblings like build_carousel, edit_carousel, or get_carousel.

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?

Compatibility notes (Photoshop/Photopea for PSD, Figma/Illustrator for SVG) strongly imply the use case — handing layers to an external design tool — but the description never states when to choose this over get_carousel or create_carousel, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferred rather than instructed.

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