export_landscape_heightmap

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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the output format constraints (.r16 is exactly width*height*2 bytes; a short file is a failure signal) and the diagnostic purpose (verifying imports, min/max, unfilled regions). With destructiveHint=true, however, it never warns that an existing file at file_path may be overwritten, which is the main behavioral risk the annotation flags.

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 action and the sibling-routing rule, then format and failure-signal details, then an inline Returns block. Length is justified by the routing rationale and format constraints, though the 'handful of probes has repeatedly suggested flips' narrative is slightly verbose.

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?

No structured output schema exists, but the description supplies an inline Returns field list, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. Combined with the format rules and sibling routing, nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 region (vertex sub-region, defaults to whole landscape), file_path, and landscape_actor_name are already documented. The description restates the region/whole-landscape distinction but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete verb (dump/export) and resource (landscape heightmap) plus an optional sub-region, and names the sibling it competes with (get_landscape_height_at). An agent can distinguish it from the point-sampling sibling without opening either 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?

Explicitly prescribes when to use this tool ('any question about the whole terrain', 'when the question covers the whole surface') and when not to ('Use get_landscape_height_at instead for a single world XY'). Names the alternative and the selecting condition, with a rationale for the preference.

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