export_smart_mask

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one real behavioral constraint — output is confined to SP_MCP_EXPORT_ROOTS — but says nothing about what 'verified' means, whether export fails or silently succeeds on collision, or how the `overwrite` flag (default false) changes 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, leading with the action and resource. It is efficient, though that efficiency is partly the result of omitting information the agent actually needs.

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 needn't be spelled out. However, for a four-parameter, no-annotation export/mutation tool, the description leaves preconditions, overwrite semantics, naming behavior, and 'verified' undefined — significant gaps for correct invocation.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. It implies output_directory is constrained to SP_MCP_EXPORT_ROOTS, which is genuinely useful, but `uid`, `name`, and `overwrite` are left entirely unexplained (whose uid, name of what artifact, overwrite of what).

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?

Names a specific verb (Export) and a specific resource (a layer mask, materialized as a 'verified Smart Mask'), which is enough to separate it from export_smart_material and export_textures in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance: nothing about preconditions (e.g. the layer must already have a mask), nothing about when to prefer apply_smart_mask or export_smart_material instead, and no mention of what to do if an export already exists. Usage has to be inferred entirely from the name.

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