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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: SVG/drawio use stored node positions or fall back to auto-layout, and no flow content leaves to a third party, which is a meaningful data-handling disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then one tight sentence per format, then the layout caveat and the privacy note. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

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 burden of describing returns and does so format by format. With annotations covering safety and the schema covering both parameters, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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% (baseline 3), and the description goes beyond the bare enum by explaining what each format value actually produces, including the JSON payload contents (title, graph_nodes, graph_edges) and the auto-layout caveat. flow_id gains no extra meaning but the schema already documents it adequately.

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 (a saved Wavelength flow) plus the format dimension, so an agent immediately knows this serializes a flow into another representation. It enumerates exactly what each format yields, which separates it from show_flow/format_flow in spirit, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 per-format return descriptions implicitly tell the agent which format to pick for a given need (diagram string vs JSON graph vs renderable SVG vs draw.io XML), which is useful selection guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to alternatives, and no prerequisites such as permissions or flow-state requirements.

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