photos_export

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the beta status, the single-item scope, and the default output folder, which is useful, but it says nothing about overwrite behavior, file naming collisions, permissions/Photos access requirements, or whether the export is reversible.

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 definition is short but only because it is truncated: the sentence ends in 'as Photo...', leaving an incomplete clause and losing whatever export-format detail was intended. The '(Beta)' prefix is fine, but the text is under-specified rather than concise.

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 filesystem-writing export tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain how the target photo is identified, where the file lands, and what is returned. It stops mid-sentence, so an agent cannot confidently construct a correct call.

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 zero parameters the baseline is 4, but the description implies selectable inputs (which photo/video, which folder) that the empty schema does not expose, creating a mismatch the agent must resolve. The '~/Downloads' default is the only concrete parameter-adjacent detail provided.

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 (Exports) plus resource (one photo or video) and destination (a folder on this Mac, default ~/Downloads) makes the purpose clear. It does not, however, distinguish itself from media-related siblings such as video_export_gif or recipe_export, and the sentence is cut off mid-clause, leaving the intent partially unresolved.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to prefer it over video_export_gif or photos_search for a given task, and the truncation may have removed whatever guidance existed.

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