Export

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

Annotations already mark destructive/read/write, so description doesn't need to repeat safety; it adds the critical side-effect boundary: exporting writes files but does not save the working document, and aseprite saves a copy. It also reveals atlas output content (per-frame and per-tag data), which annotations do not convey.

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 sentences, no filler; first sentence carries the core action and op menu, second covers the key layout guidance and the save distinction. Front-loaded and every phrase 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?

Given 12 parameters and a schema with 92% coverage plus an output schema, the description need only supply orientation and decision criteria, which it does. The only omitted details (paraminterplay around layers/tags/trim) are already in the property descriptions.

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?

With 92% schema description coverage, baseline iss met; description adds a layer beyond schema by explaining what each op produces and directing the agent to sheetType and byTag for layout control. This helps select among enum values without reopening 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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Write game-ready files') and enumerates each op with its output type, distinguishing export from document-saving. It also identifies spritesheet as the engine-consumable format, making the tool's purpose concrete.

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?

States a clear use case for spritesheet ('what an engine actually consumes') and explicitly names the alternative for a different need ('use sprite_manage op save for that'). The when-not boundary (exporting does not save) is explicit, so an agent can route correctly.

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