wp_export_heightmap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only states the artifact produced. It does not disclose that this writes files to disk, whether output_path is created or overwritten, permission/selector requirements, size or runtime characteristics, or any failure modes.

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?

Two short sentences, action-first, with zero filler. The parameter clarification follows the purpose statement rather than preceding it, which is the right order.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated. However, for a file-writing tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should at least address output_path semantics and where the bridge data lives; that context is missing.

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 compensate. It usefully clarifies that dimension accepts a selector, name, or index — genuinely beyond the schema's bare 'string' — but leaves world_path and output_path (the required path and the output destination) completely 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 specific verb (Export), a specific resource (a dimension heightmap), and the exact outputs produced (PNG plus lossless bridge data). No sibling tool performs export, so the agent can identify this uniquely without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs a heightmap artifact rather than analysis (wp_analyze_terrain) or editing (wp_plan_terrain_edit). There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives or exclusions.

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