pixel_export_png

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds that the source canvas is untouched, parent directories are created, and failure returns 'Error: ...'. This provides concrete behavioral detail without contradiction.

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?

The description is a short paragraph (3 sentences) with the core action first, then usage guidance, then return format. Every sentence adds value; no extraneous 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?

The description covers main purpose, key behavior, parameter usage, and return format/error. It doesn't mention file overwrite behavior, but idempotentHint implies deterministic output. Given the tool's simplicity and rich schema, the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema already describes each parameter (path, scale, out_path). The description adds context: upscale is nearest-neighbor, scale 1 is true-size, and out_path is the destination. This supplements schema descriptions without being redundant.

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 states the tool exports a canvas as an upscaled PNG with nearest-neighbor pixels. It clearly specifies the resource (canvas) and output format (PNG), distinguishing it from siblings like pixel_export_gif and pixel_export_spritesheet.

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 advises using scale 1 for game-ready true-size assets and larger scales for display or sharing, which guides parameter selection. However, it does not explicitly contrast against sibling export tools or state when to choose this tool over pixel_export_gif.

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