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

Annotations already mark this as non-readOnly and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: asynchronous ZIP build, queued job, 20-minute download link validity, and LMS-login/session requirement. This gives the agent a realistic model of what happens after approval.

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?

The description is short, front-loaded, and communicates the core action and outcomes efficiently. However, the final 'mcp_session_id 필요' clause is redundant with and contradictory to the schema, so not every sentence fully 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?

For an async approval action with no output schema, the description covers the key outcomes: queued ZIP build, download capability URL, 20-minute expiration, and auth/session context. It is slightly incomplete because it does not explicitly name prepare_lms_material_export as the prerequisite step and contains the misleading session-required claim.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description's only parameter-related statement, 'mcp_session_id 필요', directly contradicts the schema's explicit optionality and fallback-to-current-transport behavior. It adds no useful parameter meaning and actively misleads about whether mcp_session_id must be supplied.

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 names a specific verb and resource: approving a pending LMS material export action. It also states the observable outcome (async ZIP build queued, 20-minute capability URL returned), which distinguishes it clearly from generic confirm_action and export_all_lms_materials.

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 establishes clear context: it applies to pending LMS export actions and requires an LMS session. The schema's note about passing the prepare response actionId reinforces the intended prepare-then-confirm flow. It does not explicitly say 'use after prepare_lms_material_export' or contrast itself with confirm_action, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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