export_spritesheet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that input can be many images or a single video whose frames are sampled, and that two files are produced (PNG plus atlas JSON). It stays silent on overwrite semantics, whether originals are modified, frame-sampling limits, and failure modes for mixed-type inputs.

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, and the key nouns (sprite sheet, atlas) land early. It is dense but every clause (pixelize, pack, images/video, two artifacts) earns its place.

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?

An 11-parameter, dual-mode (still images or video) export tool with no annotations and no output schema needs far more: atlas format choice, grid/padding behavior, video sampling, and destructive-write risk are all absent. The description is enough to recognize the tool but not enough to call it confidently.

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 coverage is 45% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It only touches input_paths and the two outputs (both already documented in the schema), leaving width, dither, preset, columns, padding, palette, outline_mode, and max_video_frames entirely unexplained — 'pixelizes' hints at palette/width behavior but names nothing.

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 compound verb ('pixelizes and packs') and a concrete resource ('single Sprite Sheet PNG + TexturePacker/Aseprite JSON coordinate atlas'), including the two output artifacts. It does not differentiate itself from sibling export_tileset, which handles a closely related output, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

No when-to-use / when-not guidance. The 'OR sampled video frames' phrasing clarifies acceptable input shapes but never tells the agent when to pick this over export_tileset or image_convert. Usage is only implied by the name and the word 'packing'.

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