export_onion_skin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains parameters but does not state whether the tool is read-only or destructive, what file format is output (inferred from 'scale' description mentions PNG), or any required permissions. Missing side effects or return behavior.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and a list of parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the key action.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains all inputs. It lacks explicit output format confirmation beyond the PNG mention in scale, but overall sufficiently guides usage for a simple 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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema for all 7 parameters (e.g., 'frame: The in-focus frame (drawn fully opaque), 1-based'), compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. It clarifies defaults and ranges (e.g., ghost_opacity 0-255).

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 states a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('frame with neighbouring frames ghosted behind it'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like export_png, export_gif, and export_frames.

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 implies usage for onion skin export but does not explicitly tell when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., 'Use this when you need onion skin; otherwise use export_png or export_gif'). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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