export_sprite_sheet

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it makes clear a PNG file is written to an absolute output_path and documents the returned fields (file_path, columns, rows, frame sizes, count). It omits whether an existing file is overwritten or whether any permissions/state requirements exist, which is the main remaining gap.

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 a tight parameter list and a return-shape line; every entry earns its place given the empty schema descriptions. Slightly repetitive for an agent that also reads the schema titles, but justified here.

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 five-parameter export tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, all parameters with defaults, source-mode semantics, and the return object. Only overwrite behavior and any preconditions are unaddressed.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: every one of the five parameters is explained, including the default for columns (square root of frame count), padding default, the enumerated values for source, and the meaning of image_index relative to source="layers".

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Combine multiple frames into a sprite sheet PNG', which an agent can distinguish from generic exporters like export_image or batch_export by the sprite-sheet resource. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from near neighbors such as export_icon_sizes or export_social_media_kit, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 explains the two source modes ('layers' vs 'images') and their defaults, which implies when each mode applies, but it never states when to prefer this tool over export_image, batch_export, or export_icon_sizes. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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