Export layers

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description usefully discloses the dual behavior that without `path` bytes are returned as image content and with `path` the file is written. It stops short of warning that a write may overwrite an existing file or describing permission/format constraints, so it adds moderate context but not the full picture.

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 sentences, no filler, and the most consequential distinction (path vs. no path) is placed second but stated immediately after the format list without padding.

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 14-parameter tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description is far too thin: an agent cannot determine what `ids` selects, how `size`/`scale` interact, or how cropping/mark options apply. The core I/O behavior is covered but most invocation surface is not.

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 coverage is 0% across 14 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only clarifies `path` (destination vs. inline bytes) and echoes the list of values for `format`. Parameters such as ids, size, scale, bleed, cmyk, cropMarks and the svg* flags receive no semantics anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Export layers') and enumerates the supported output formats, so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not differentiate itself from sibling image-producing tools such as screenshot/get_screenshot, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 explains the two output modes (bytes returned vs. file written) but never says when to choose this tool over screenshot, get_screenshot, or get_metadata. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing.

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