armorpaint_export_layer

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds the concrete output artifact (PNG) and the texture channels involved. It does not detail what layer_id=-1 resolves to or the overwrite behavior, but these are surfaced in the schema and the safety profile is already disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every phrase carries meaning and the text is appropriately sized despite being short.

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 tool with four parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too terse to let an agent invoke it correctly without guessing: the required path_name is unexplained, layer_id's -1 semantics are unclear, and the overwrite flag is not described. The output schema presence reduces the need to describe return values, but does not fix parameter ambiguity.

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 must explain parameters; it only elaborates the channel options ('base color/mask, normal, or packed occlusion-roughness-metallic'), leaving path_name, layer_id, and overwrite semantically undocumented.

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 concrete verb ('Export'), a precise resource ('one layer's ... texture'), and a target format ('PNG file'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling exporters like armorpaint_export_mesh or armorpaint_export_textures.

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 phrase 'one layer's' implies this tool is for per-layer texture export rather than bulk/material export, but the description never states when to choose it over alternatives such as armorpaint_export_textures or armorpaint_export_material. No explicit exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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