photoshop_export_as

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it discloses side effects ('writes one file to path'), preconditions ('active document'), version requirements (Photoshop 23.2+ for WebP/AVIF), error behavior ('return a clear error when unsupported'), and the non-destructive guarantee. There is no contradiction with annotations because none exist.

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 line-broken into scannable segments, front-loads the core purpose, and every line earns its place. It is on the longer side, but the user-phrasing mapping, return format, and preconditions/side-effects notes are all non-redundant additions.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates fully: it specifies the JSON return shape, preconditions, side effects, version constraints, and usage boundaries. For a 4-parameter export tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents path, format, quality, and document_id in detail. The description adds only modest param-adjacent context (WebP/AVIF version requirement tied to format), which does not meaningfully exceed what the schema provides.

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 a precise verb+resource statement: 'Export a copy of the active document as PNG, JPEG, WebP or AVIF without changing the open document.' It names concrete formats, clarifies the non-destructive nature, and explicitly differentiates from the sibling photoshop_save_document ('Do NOT use when: saving the working document itself').

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('web-ready delivery formats are needed'), explicit when-not-to-use ('saving the working document itself'), and names the alternative tool. It also maps common user phrasings ('export for web', 'save as webp', 'quick export png') to this tool, which helps an agent recognize intente and avoids misrouting.

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