Export a layer's pixels

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

Annotations already establish idempotence and non-destructiveness; the description adds meaningful behavior by specifying that transforms are not applied and resolution is original, and that either the image or mask may be copied. It does not contradict the annotations, and the file output aligns with readOnlyHint=false.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and packs in the two most decision-relevant qualifiers ('untransformed, original resolution' and 'mask'). No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple, has idempotent/non-destructive annotations, and the description covers the core selection of what gets exported. The absence of output schema and sparse outputPath description are minor gaps because the purpose is a straightforward file export, but they keep this from being fully complete.

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 50%, and the description adds some meaning by tying 'what' values to source PNG versus mask and by making clear the layer must be a pixel layer. However, outputPath and path semantics are not expanded beyond the sparse schema, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Copies') and resource ('a pixel layer's source PNG ... or its mask') and clarifies the output is written 'to a file'. The qualifier 'untransformed, original resolution' distinguishes it from flattened or rendered exports without ambiguity.

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 makes clear this tool is for raw source pixels or masks at original resolution, which tells an agent when it is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives like export_flattened or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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