Export selected photos to a target folder by specifying photo IDs, output directory, format (e.g., JPEG), and quality settings for efficient file delivery.
Export selected photos to disk with specified format and quality.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quality | No | ||
| photo_ids | Yes | ||
| output_dir | Yes | ||
| format_type | No | jpeg |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic operation. It does not mention whether existing files are overwritten, whether the output directory must exist, whether original photos are untouched, or what side effects writing to disk may have.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It loses a point because it is so terse that it omits important usage and parameter context that should accompany a tool with no annotations.
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?
For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, this description is incomplete. Even though an output schema exists, an agent cannot correctly choose parameters or understand required inputs, file behavior, or valid values from the description alone.
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 compensate for the parameters, but it only vaguely references 'format and quality.' It does not explain photo_ids, output_dir, the quality scale, or accepted format_type values, leaving the required parameters 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 verb ('Export'), a specific resource ('selected photos'), a destination ('to disk'), and the configurable aspects ('format and quality'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like import_photos, send_to_photoshop, and export_develop_preset.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., photos must be selected), exclusions, or when to prefer a sibling such as send_to_photoshop or export_develop_preset.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.