lightroom_export_photos

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that files are written to disk but does not disclose overwrite behavior, whether directories are created, allowed format values, or what the tool returns, and it leaves ambiguous whether 'selected photos' means the current Lightroom selection or the supplied photo_ids.

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 filler or redundant wording. Its brevity is a structural strength even though it under-specifies behavior and parameters.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and a sparse description, so relying on the raw schema alone is not enough. Missing information about required parameters, output directory semantics, and export behavior makes this incomplete for correct invocation.

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 should compensate for the 4 parameters. It only maps generically to 'format' and 'quality', leaving photo_ids and output_dir unexplained, and provides no detail about valid format_type values or the quality range.

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 names a specific verb ('Export'), resource ('selected photos'), destination ('disk'), and key options ('format and quality'). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'export_photos', which appears to be the same operation under a different name.

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 like 'lightroom_export_develop_preset' or 'lightroom_send_to_photoshop'. It also fails to mention prerequisites such as which photos are considered 'selected' or whether the output directory must already exist.

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