krita_export_png

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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the behavioral context that this creates a separate PNG in an output root rather than altering the source document, which is useful. It does not, however, mention overwrite behavior or that writing to disk may overwrite an existing file even though the 'overwrite' parameter exists.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose and a key detail (separate PNG under a configured output root). It is appropriately short, though the final clause about filename association is vague and could have been replaced with more concrete naming/overwrite information.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, this is significantly incomplete. The agent cannot determine how to construct a valid call: what 'path' should be, how 'root' interacts with it, what 'overwrite' does, or how the document's filename is preserved. The description only covers a fraction of what the agent needs to invoke correctly.

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% for 6 parameters, so the description carries the burden of explaining what each parameter does. The description only alludes to a 'configured output root' and 'filename association,' giving no clear mapping to root, path, overwrite, document_id, instance_id, or operation_id. This is nearly no compensation for the schema gap.

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 identifies a specific action (export a separate PNG), a resource (PNG output), and a distinguishing constraint (under a configured output root, preserving the document's filename association). It is clear enough to separate from saving the Krita document itself, though the phrase 'preserving the document's filename association' is somewhat ambiguous.

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 description implies a use case: exporting a PNG without modifying the working document, and mentions the 'configured output root' as a context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like krita_save_document or krita_get_preview, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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