Export Visuals

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

Useful additions beyond the annotations: the return value is a downloadable file URL, and the source visuals stay in the workspace, which supports the non-destructive read of annotations. But for an openWorldHint, non-idempotent export against an external account, nothing is said about credit consumption (despite a check_credits sibling), URL expiry, or repeated-export cost. The description adds context without covering the operational traits an agent would want.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by tightly scoped bullets; nothing is padded. Minor redundancy in listing the three formats in the header and then again as bullet labels, but each bullet adds decision-relevant guidance.

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 only two required params, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the essentials: what comes back (a file URL) and what happens to source assets. It falls short on obtaining the generation_id, credit/cost implications, and the boundary with download_visual.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning: it explains all three format enum values with use cases, which is exactly the missing information. generation_id is only implicitly defined as a 'completed generation' reference, with no hint on where to obtain it (get_generation/confirm_generation siblings), leaving half the parameter set partially specified.

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?

A specific verb (export) plus resource (a completed generation) and explicit output formats, so the agent knows precisely what the tool produces. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling download_visual, which appears to overlap on retrieving generated assets.

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 'completed generation' precondition and the per-format guidance ('Ideal for LinkedIn carousel uploads', 'PowerPoint/Google Slides presentations', 'Bulk download all images as PNG') tell the agent which format to pick in which situation. No exclusions are stated and no alternative tool is named for cases where the generation isn't complete or the user just wants a single image.

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