export

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that files are written to disk and that file paths are returned, plus the default output folder, but it says nothing about overwrite behavior, permission requirements, failure modes, or whether existing files are clobbered — significant omissions for a write-to-disk 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and then a compact catalogue of formats where each parenthetical earns its place by disambiguating near-synonyms like png/tpng/layers/zip. It is one long run-on sentence, but there is essentially no filler.

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 four-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the format dimension well and mentions returned paths, but leaves 'scale' and 'include_reference' entirely unexplained and gives no detail on overwrite or side effects — an agent could still mis-invoke it on those parameters.

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 only 25%, and the description adds no meaning for 'scale' or 'include_reference'. It does, however, thoroughly explain all nine 'formats' enum values and the default for 'dir', which recovers much of the gap but leaves two parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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+resource ('Save the board to disk') and then enumerates every supported format with a parenthetical explaining what each produces. An agent can distinguish this from model_export or open_board without opening the schema.

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 format-by-format annotation effectively guides which value to pick for a desired output (vector vs layered vs per-item crops), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings like model_export or board, and no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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