export_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Export pages as images' does not reveal that this writes files to disk, may overwrite existing files, or that confirmDestructive must be true. The description also fails to note that the document itself is not modified but external image files are created.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is efficient and easy to parse, though it is under-specified. The conciseness is good, but the lack of additional context prevents a perfect score.

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 6-parameter export tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is seriously incomplete. It does not explain pageRange syntax, the mandatory confirmation flag, the effect of includeBleed, or what files are produced. An agent would likely call this incorrectly without additional knowledge.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter details. The schema documents most parameters, but the description does not clarify the pageRange syntax or the meaning of confirmDestructive, leaving a small gap that the high coverage already covers.

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 the action (Export), the resource (pages), and the output (images). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_pdf and export_epub, though it doesn't mention the specific image formats or that folderPath is required, which are left to 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of the required confirmDestructive parameter, and no indication that folderPath must be writable. An agent would have no basis for choosing this over export_pdf or export_epub, or for understanding the confirmation requirement.

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