export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does contribute real behavior: tiled rendering to bound memory and a concrete timing estimate (~75 s for 40 MP RAW). It still omits consequential traits for a write operation — whether an existing file at output_path is overwritten, what happens on partial/failed renders, and whether the render reflects uncommitted state.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action before the performance caveat; nothing is padded. It could arguably be tightened further by folding the timing note into the same sentence, but no wording is wasted.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and its performance profile, which is a reasonable minimum. It falls short on the side effects an agent needs to call it safely — overwrite behavior, failure handling, and relationship to other rendering siblings.

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 both max_size (long-edge pixels, default full resolution) and output_path (absolute path, allowed extensions) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

"Render the current recipe at full resolution and save it" gives a specific verb (render/save) and object (current recipe, full resolution), so the agent knows this is a file-producing operation rather than a viewer. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like develop or frame, which could plausibly also produce rendered output.

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?

Usage is only implied: "the current recipe" signals this operates on already-applied edits rather than raw input, but there is no statement of when to choose export over develop, frame, or loupe, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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