batch_export_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions parallel execution but does not disclose whether the export creates files, returns binary data, requires specific permissions, or how failures or partial exports are handled. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then packs in format, scale, and parallelism. Every element earns its place.

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 three-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is mostly sufficient for selection and straightforward invocation. However, with no output schema or annotations, the missing information about what the call returns or where outputs are delivered leaves a notable gap for an agent deciding how to handle the result.

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%, and all three parameters (nodeIds, scale, fileId) are already explained in the input schema. The description only echoes scale values and 'multiple' nodeIds, adding no meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 a specific action ('Batch exports'), a concrete resource ('multiple artboards or layers'), and output characteristics ('as PNG/SVG at 1x, 2x, or 3x resolutions'). It clearly distinguishes this from single-asset export tools and other export variants like export_code and export_combined_pdf.

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 word 'batch' implies the tool is for exporting multiple nodes at once, which is a soft usage cue. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs single-item 'export' or other export siblings, and no exclusion like 'for single-node exports, use export instead'.

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