export_image

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that originals are protected and that existing files require overwrite=true. With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, this is helpful, but it omits behavior for dry_run, save_project, metadata handling, bit_depth, and quality.

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 key constraint and behavior are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact format list. It is appropriately short, though the format list is somewhat bare and does not tie formats to the format parameter explicitly.

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?

This is a 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage. The description covers file writing and overwrite safety but is incomplete for most optional parameters and the return behavior.

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 carry parameter meaning. It partially explains output, overwrite, and supported formats, but leaves project_id, dry_run, quality, metadata, bit_depth, and save_project undocumented.

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 states a specific operation: render at full resolution and write a new image file. That distinguishes it implicitly from preview-oriented siblings like render_preview, but it does not explicitly name the sibling or clarify boundaries with apply_to_file.

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?

It gives one important usage condition: existing files require overwrite=true, and originals are protected. However, it does not say when to choose export_image versus render_preview, apply_to_file, or other output-related tools.

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