export_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the output format (sRGB JPEG), explains the effects of quality (1-100), max_dimension (resize longest edge), and path (override default destination), and notes the return value (written file path). It does not mention overwrite behavior or prerequisites (e.g., whether the image must be edited), but the essential behavioral traits are covered.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses compact, information-dense phrasing. Every clause adds value: format, parameter effects, and return value. 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main inputs and return value. It also references the library destination, tying to the set_library sibling. It omits potential error behaviors or whether existing files are overwritten, but for a straightforward export tool, it is reasonably 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameters. It provides meaningful semantics for quality (range 1-100), max_dimension (resizes longest edge), and path (overrides default destination). image_id is implicit from context, and the description adds clarity that would otherwise be missing from the schema alone.

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 'Export the edited image as an sRGB JPEG', using a specific verb and resource with clear output format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like render_preview (preview) and set_recipe (recipe management), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (when exporting an edited image to JPEG) and lists parameters that affect the output. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context of siblings (e.g., render_preview for on-screen preview) makes usage clear. No exclusions are stated, so it earns a 4.

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