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

Annotations already declare the safe, read-only, idempotent profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the 15-minute expiry, that the ZIP is private, and that fetching requires private request headers alongside an equivalent browser-openable downloadUrl. It stops short of rate limits or whether repeated exports are cached/regenerated.

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, zero waste, with the duration and privacy constraint front-loaded before the return-value details. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract itself (private fetch URL plus headers, and a browser-openable downloadUrl), and annotations cover the safety profile. For a 3-parameter export it leaves no decision-relevant gap.

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%, so nodeId, workspaceId, and format are already fully documented in the schema, and the description adds no format/ID semantics of its own. Baseline 3 applies when structured fields carry the parameter burden.

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 and resource ('Prepares a ... ZIP export of one canvas node') and pins the scope to a single node, which implicitly separates it from the plural sibling fuzz_export_nodes. The output shape (URL + downloadUrl) is named, so an agent knows exactly what the call produces.

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?

Scope ('one canvas node') implies when this is the right tool versus the bulk fuzz_export_nodes, and the format note says what happens when it is omitted. However, no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance, so usage is inferred rather than stated.

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