Export flattened image

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

Annotations already provide the key safety profile: not read-only, not destructive, idempotent. The description adds useful context by specifying 'full resolution' and 'whole project,' which implies a potentially expensive operation, but it does not disclose file overwrite behavior, output side effects, or performance considerations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no filler. Every word adds meaning: renders, whole project, full resolution, PNG/JPEG.

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 straightforward export tool, the description plus fully documented schema and annotations are largely sufficient to select and invoke it correctly. Minor omissions are around usage differentiation and return/output behavior, but the file destination and format semantics are already present in the schema.

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%, with path, quality, and outputPath all documented clearly. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the schema already carries the semantic weight, so the baseline score of 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?

The description names a specific operation: rendering the whole project at full resolution to a PNG or JPEG file. It clearly identifies the resource scope ('whole project') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like export_layer or render_preview by meaning, even though those alternatives are not named.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as export_layer or render_preview. An agent can infer it is for whole-project exports, but the description does not state any exclusions or alternatives, which is a notable gap given the closely related sibling tools.

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