Export everything

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

With no annotations, the description does carry the important disclosure that this is a write operation producing real files on disk, plus a note about what it returns: absolute paths and an inline preview. It omits material behavior: the output root location, whether existing files are overwritten, what errors occur for invalid formats or directories, and whether the operation is destructive or idempotent.

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 key constraint, which is writing real files rather than source files, appears up front, followed by the format catalog and a compact example. The telegraphic style is dense but nearly every clause carries information; only minor wording could be tightened.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately explains the format dimension and the return value. It still leaves gaps around destination root, file collision behavior, and error conditions, which an agent would need in order to call this tool safely the first time.

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 schema covers 82% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by clarifying format semantics that the enum names alone do not convey: 'png (per frame)', 'apng (lossless animated PNG)', 'svg (animated)', 'spritesheet (PNG + atlas JSON)'. The worked example also shows a valid combination of formats, scale, and atlas that illustrates how parameters interact.

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 names a concrete action on a concrete resource, namely writing asset files in a list of named formats, and it enumerates those formats explicitly. By stating that the tool never writes source files, it implicitly draws a boundary with sprite_save_project, which is a useful distinction, though that sibling is never named.

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 phrase 'never source files' implies that persistent project state belongs to another tool, and the format list implies when this tool is appropriate. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose sprite_export over sprite_save_project, sprite_gallery, or sprite_preview, and no stated preconditions such as an active or selected project.

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