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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds rich context beyond annotations: a 15-minute expiry, private ZIP, lazy build when the link is fetched, no workspace persistence, and a return structure with private request headers plus an equivalent downloadUrl.

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 with zero waste; the core action and scope are front-loaded, followed by essential behavioral and return details. Every sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (URL with private headers and downloadUrl). It covers expiry, privacy, and non-persistence, and the annotations carry the safety profile. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (format, nodeIds, workspaceId) including constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides, so it lands at the baseline of 3.

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 'export' and resource 'canvas nodes' with the scope 'several canvas nodes from one workspace'. The plural 'several' directly distinguishes it from the sibling fuzz_export_node (singular), so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 description implies usage for multiple nodes ('several canvas nodes') but never explicitly states when to use this tool versus the singular fuzz_export_node or other export/download siblings. There are no exclusions or alternative routing instructions.

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