export_png

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it omits key traits: whether an existing file at outputPath is overwritten, whether the write can fail or require permissions, and whether the operation affects editor state. 'On disk' confirms a filesystem side effect, but nothing about its consequences is disclosed.

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. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing behavioral and usage detail noted elsewhere.

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 and no annotations, so the description should describe the return result and side effects; instead it says nothing about what a successful export yields (path, confirmation) or about overwrite behavior. For a filesystem-writing tool with three parameters, this leaves material gaps.

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 100%, with each of the three parameters individually documented (scale's nearest-neighbor semantics, the .png target path, and a specific frame number). The description adds only the vague notion of exporting 'the active sprite or frame,' which does not extend meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (exports) and resource (active sprite or frame) plus the output format (PNG file on disk), so the fundamental action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling tools like save_sprite or save_sprite_as, which also persist sprite data, so an agent must infer the difference between raster export and native save.

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 guidance on when to choose this over save_sprite/save_sprite_as, nor any prerequisites (e.g., must a sprite be open, does it operate on the active sprite only). Usage is implied solely by the word 'Exports'.

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