export_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it explains extension-driven format selection, that layer export is cropped to content unless full_canvas, and that quality applies only to jpg/webp. It omits whether the export is non-destructive to the document, whether it overwrites existing files, and what the call returns.

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?

Four compact sentences in a front-loaded "param = meaning" format with zero filler; the core export statement comes first, then parameter modifiers. Nothing can be cut without losing 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 an 8-parameter export tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the call semantics well enough to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain around path resolution (relative vs absolute, workspace root behavior) and whether a return value/path is produced.

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 for all 8 parameters, and it does: path/format via extension, layer, full_canvas, quality range, and the x/y/width/height region quad with a practical example. Each optional parameter's effect on the output is explained in a way the bare schema titles ("X", "Y", "Width") never could.

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 (export) and resource (flattened image), lists the supported formats, and scopes the output to the workspace with format inferred from the file extension. The word "flattened" distinguishes it from sibling exports like export_selection_mask and export_animation_frames.

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?

Gives concrete usage contexts through the parameter notes: layer export for per-layer output, region export "for the area to send to an inpainting model". It does not explicitly steer the agent away from sibling tools (export_selection_mask, canvas_snapshot), so routing requires some inference.

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