armorpaint_export_textures

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

Annotations are largely non-informative, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that only the visible layer stack is exported, that output is PNG PBR maps, and that an installed preset is required. It does not mention overwrite or file-naming behavior, but the core side effect is clearly described without contradicting annotations.

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 description is two tight sentences with the core behavior front-loaded. The second sentence is a useful actionable tip rather than filler or redundant schema restatement.

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?

The essential export behavior, output format, layer scope, and preset requirement are all covered, and an output schema exists for return values. Missing detail around overwrite and directory semantics is partly mitigated by self-explanatory parameter names and defaults.

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 illuminate parameters. It adds meaningful guidance for 'preset' by requiring exact names from list_node_types, but directory, name, and overwrite semantics are left entirely to their names and defaults. This partially compensates for the schema gap but not completely.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Export the visible layer stack as PNG PBR maps.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like armorpaint_export_layer, armorpaint_export_mesh, and armorpaint_export_material by specifying both the output type and the scope of layers.

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?

It provides concrete pre-usage guidance: 'Get exact preset names from list_node_types.' This tells the agent how to prepare the preset parameter. It does not explicitly list exclusion criteria or compare against alternative export tools, but the workflow context is clear enough.

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