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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is low, yet the description adds non-obvious behavior: a 15-minute expiry window, that the returned URL is 'private' and needs request headers, and that a separate browser-friendly downloadUrl exists. These are traits annotations cannot express.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the export lifetime and privacy qualifier are front-loaded before the return-value sentence. Every clause carries distinct information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so explicitly (URL + private headers, plus downloadUrl). Combined with 100% schema coverage and annotation-covered safety, an agent has everything needed to call and consume this tool.

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 100% and every parameter (workspaceId, nodeIds, format) is documented inline in the schema, including format fallback/error behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating the workspace/node scoping, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a precise verb ('Prepares'), resource ('canvas nodes'), cardinality ('several') and scope ('from one workspace'), plus the output artifact type (ZIP). The plural cardinality implicitly separates it from the singular sibling fuzz_export_node, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

It states a usage constraint (all nodes must come from one workspace) but never says when to prefer this over fuzz_export_node or fuzz_download_asset, nor any when-not condition. Usage is only implied by the plural 'several'.

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