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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it preserves placement IDs, bakes custom fields, retains materialRendering/materialAreas, bakes terrain into PNGs, and warns against double-shading or duplicate visual rendering. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence carries technical caveats rather than padding. It loses a point for being somewhat sprawling and mixing high-level output semantics with detailed per-engine rendering warnings, which could be better organized.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the export contains, and it does so thoroughly: JSON fields, bundled files, per-engine behavior, and a clear alternative for zip outputs. It is quite complete, though the lack of a clean return-structure summary and a few audience-specific rules make it slightly harder to fully rely on.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining behavioral differences tied to engine choices, such as GameMaker using tizo_draw_tile, Tiled consumers configuring filtering from metadata, and Phaser requiring mask/blend rendering for materialAreaSource. This goes beyond the enum names, though it doesn't add much about mapId.

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 a specific verb (export) and resource (map), and specifies the output as engine-ready JSON from saved level data. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_export_command by explicitly pointing to that tool for the zip bundle.

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 direct usage routing: 'For the zip bundle ... use get_export_command instead.' It also gives engine-specific consumer guidance for GameMaker, Tiled, and Phaser, helping an agent know when this JSON-focused export is appropriate versus alternatives.

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