Export

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

Beyond the annotations (which only declare the safety profile), the description discloses execution mode ('runs without activating Illustrator in default background mode; never invokes Computer Use') and the crucial return-shape difference: single PNG/JPG come back as base64 in the response while artboard:all returns file paths only. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs and cannot get from the structured fields.

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 sentences, all front-loaded and substantive: purpose, batch target, return format, execution mode. Every sentence earns its place, with only minor overlap with the schema's own artboard:all note.

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 6-parameter tool with nested option objects and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value semantics (base64 vs. file paths) and execution context. It leaves output_path behavior and the temp-document side effect to the schema, which is acceptable, but a note on permissions or error cases would round it out.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning for the target/format interaction (base64 image returned for single PNG/JPG, paths only for artboard:all) that helps the agent pick parameter values. The artboard:all filename-suffix detail is redundant with the schema, keeping this below a 5.

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 enumerates the resources it operates on: objects, groups, artboards, selection. It's immediately clear what the tool does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling export_pdf, leaving the agent to infer which export path to take.

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 gives a conditional for one target value ('Use target "artboard:all" to batch-export every artboard in one call') and explains when base64 vs. file-path returns occur. But it never states when to prefer this tool over export_pdf or other siblings, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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