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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing cost (1 unit), auth requirement (API key or connected account), the semantics of the two visibility modes, and the dedupe rule (same boundary+format+detail returns the existing entry). Note a mild tension with idempotentHint=false, but that is defensible since name/visibility can differ on a repeat call, so it is not a contradiction.

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 side effects, then cost/auth in a compact block with zero filler sentences. It is dense to the point of being one long paragraph, but nothing meaningful could be cut without losing routing or safety context.

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 still declares the return value (the library entry with its permanent download URL). Combined with auth, cost, dedupe, and visibility semantics, an agent has everything needed to call 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 only 40%, and the description compensates by explaining what visibility actually does (org = every member at their role; restricted = you, admins, and share_file recipients) and that name defaults to boundary+format+detail. The detail and format enums are left for the schema to speak for themselves.

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+resource (exports a boundary and saves it in the org's file library) and explicitly contrasts with export_boundary (export only) and links forward to list_files and share_file. An agent can place it precisely among the siblings without opening the 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?

Names the alternative (export_boundary) and the reason to choose this one (persistence + discoverability on the dashboard/through list_files), plus which tool to use afterwards for sharing (share_file). It doesn't give an explicit 'do not use this if…' exclusion, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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