export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "Write" implies a filesystem mutation, but the description never says whether existing files are overwritten, whether directories are created, what permissions or paths are required, or what the tool returns. Only the output format list is conveyed.

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?

A single short sentence with the output formats front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently sized, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is too thin. An agent lacks the information needed to supply "path", "out", and "layout" correctly or to anticipate side effects.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It echoes the png/pdf/svg values already encoded in the schema's enum and says nothing about "path" (required), "out", or "layout".

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 gives a verb ("Write") and the output formats (png, pdf, svg) sourced from a rendered figure's "receipt", so the general intent is graspable. However, "receipt" is unexplained domain jargon and the description does not clearly distinguish this tool from the sibling "render", which an agent might reasonably confuse with producing figure output.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the siblings (render, describe, validate, audit, infer), nor any prerequisite such as needing a prior render step. The phrase "from a rendered figure's receipt" hints at an ordering dependency but never states it explicitly.

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