export_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses defaults and conditional behavior (quality ignored for PNG/TIFF, flatten defaults to True). It does not say whether flattening mutates the in-document image, whether an existing file at file_path is overwritten, or what happens if no image is active, which are material for a write-to-disk operation.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by scannable parameter and return lists with no filler. The parameter block duplicates schema field names, but that is justified given zero schema description coverage.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description lists the return fields (status, file_path, format, file_size_bytes), and all parameters are documented. Missing only edge-case behavior around overwriting files and document mutation, which keeps it from a 5.

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%, and the description fully compensates: every one of the five parameters gets meaning, accepted values, defaults, and the format-dependent rule for quality. This is well beyond what the bare schema conveys.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Export the current image to a raster file') and enumerates supported formats, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not differentiate from near-siblings like batch_export or export_web_optimized, which limits it to a 4.

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?

Usage is implied by 'current image' (as opposed to a batch or multi-sibling flow), but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over batch_export, export_web_optimized, save_xcf, or when the image must already exist. The agent must infer the routing decision.

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