export_sprite_sheet

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is consistent with a file-writing export. The description adds useful context by disclosing that output is an image plus optional JSON data with various feature toggles, but says nothing about where files land, whether existing files are overwritten, or the required textureFilename behavior.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the menu path and capability list following. No filler, though the capability list is dense.

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 31-parameter, side-effectful export with no output schema and near-zero schema coverage, the description is too thin. It omits the required textureFilename role, output destination conventions, and interaction between the many layout/split/trim options.

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 only 6% across 31 parameters, so the description carries real weight. It usefully groups features (layouts, padding, trimming, extrusion, splitting by layers/tags, tilesets, listing layers/tags/slices) that map to parameters like type, innerPadding/shapePadding/borderPadding, trim, extrude, splitLayers/splitTags, fromTilesets, and listLayers/listTags/listSlices, but gives no per-parameter semantics or formats.

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 (Exports) and resource (sprite sheet image plus optional JSON data), and references the exact menu path File > Export Sprite Sheet. It clearly conveys the resource and output shape, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling generic 'export' tool.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling 'export' or 'import_sprite_sheet' tools. An agent must infer that this is the sprite-sheet-specific path from the name alone.

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