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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully adds that a preview card and PNG link are returned. It omits the biggest behavioral trait implied by the schema: the numbered 'part'/'export_id' protocol, which suggests a multi-part, multi-call export flow that an agent cannot discover from the description.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is the right shape. It is arguably over-compressed for a five-parameter tool with a staged export flow, but nothing in it is wasted.

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, five parameters, and a schema that hints at a part/export_id paging protocol, the description should explain the export sequence, how to start (part 1) and continue, and what background/outline_text do. None of that is present, so an agent would likely mishandle the multi-part flow.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate, and it does not: it says nothing about 'part', 'export_id', 'background', 'outline_text', or what forms the 'artboard' identifier accepts (integer or string). Only the SVG output is hinted at, leaving four of five parameters unexplained beyond bare type info.

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 (artboard) plus the output format (SVG) and what comes back (preview card, PNG link). It is distinguishable from export_code and export_document by the SVG/artboard framing, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to pick this over export_code, export_document, draw_svg or get_assets, and no preconditions (e.g. artboard must exist/be active) are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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