export_tileset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses deduplication and X/Y/XY mirror handling plus that files are written, but it does not state overwrite behavior, path requirements, failure modes, or what happens to existing output files.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core action and ends with the concrete outputs. There is no filler and every clause adds information.

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 complex 9-parameter file-writing tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description covers only a fraction of the parameter surface and no operational constraints. It is not sufficient for an agent to call the tool confidently without opening and guessing at the schema.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly touches tile_width/tile_height ('8x8 or 16x16'), allow_flips ('mirrored tiles'), and pixelize_first ('newly pixelized'); it says nothing about palette, width, input_path, output_png, or output_map_json.

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 gives a specific verb ('Slices') and resource ('pixel-art image into fixed tiles') and names the outputs ('Tileset PNG + Tilemap JSON'). It distinguishes the operation from a generic image conversion, though it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling export_spritesheet tool.

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 what the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. With a closely related sibling like export_spritesheet and image_detect_grid available, the agent is left to infer which tool to pick.

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