Export runtime files

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: temp-folder verification with spine-core, no overwrite unless flagged, project left untouched, expected ~3-5 s runtime, and the report contents (page fill, texture memory). This is consistent with destructiveHint=false since the project is untouched and output is opt-in. It does not say what happens to partially written output on failure.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and artifact types, then safety behavior, then the sweep alternative. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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 20-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the core flow, safety, and the headline return fields (page fill, texture memory), which is more than most. Still, the majority of atlas/quality knobs are unexplained, so an agent cannot reason about them without opening 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?

With 30% schema coverage across 20 parameters, the description must carry a lot, and it only clarifies format, scales, atlas, outputDir/overwrite, and that sweep relates to atlas settings. High-impact parameters (pot, maxSize, padding, packing, preset, atlasPerSkin, nonessential, editorVersion, premultipliedAlpha) get no added meaning beyond their schema names, so compensation is partial.

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 verb (exports) and concrete resources (JSON/.skel runtime files plus packed atlas) with the key side effect (verification before copy). It distinguishes itself from spine_export_json only implicitly through the 'JSON and/or .skel plus a packed atlas' phrasing rather than by naming the sibling.

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 sweep mode is given clear usage semantics ('ranks atlas settings by texture memory and pages, writing nothing'), and overwrite behavior is stated. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over spine_export_json or the preset-based workflow, so an agent must infer the routing itself.

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