Export to destination

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is to add nuance, and it does: network uploads always require user confirmation, and the call returns a link or file path. It does not say whether an aborted confirmation raises an error or returns null.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it does, the prerequisite/confirmation caveat, the return value. Output format is stated up front and nothing is redundant.

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?

Covers the essentials for a destructive, open-world export tool: source of destinations, confirmation behavior, and return shape (no output schema exists, so naming the return is necessary and done). Missing only edge-case behavior on confirmation denial or upload failure.

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 50%; the description clarifies that 'ids' is optional and that omitting it renders the whole canvas, which is useful. tabId and beautify semantics live only in the schema, so the description does not compensate further. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb+resource: renders the canvas (or given ids) as PNG and sends it to a destination. Referencing snipaya_list_destinations as the source of valid destinations sharpens the scope. It never explicitly contrasts with the sibling snipaya_export, so an agent must infer which one is the local vs remote export path.

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 a concrete prerequisite: the destination must come from snipaya_list_destinations, which is real routing guidance. It also warns that network destinations trigger a confirmation prompt. It stops short of stating when to choose this over snipaya_export.

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