gimp_export_image

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true/readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: that the format is auto-detected from the extension, the quality scale (1-100) and which formats it applies to, and that flatten operates on a copy so the original image is untouched. It doesn't mention whether an existing file is overwritten, but the added behavioral detail is solid.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the parameter-relevant details. The parenthetical format list is slightly long but functional; no wasted prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the mutation profile is covered by annotations. The remaining gap is image_id, which is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent unsure how a target image is identified for a 4-parameter export tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it documents three of four parameters well: path (format via extension), quality (1-100, jpg/webp), and flatten (joins layers on a copy). image_id is left entirely unexplained, which is the only meaningful gap.

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 clear verb+resource ('Exporta la imagen') and specifies that the target format is inferred from the file extension, listing supported formats. However, it never distinguishes this from the closely related sibling gimp_save_image, so the agent must infer the export-vs-save boundary itself.

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 explains mechanics (format by extension, quality range, flatten-on-copy) but gives no when-to-use guidance and never names an alternative. With gimp_save_image present as a near-twin sibling, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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