Export Chart

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-destructive, idempotent write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds the supported output formats and the 'unique title' identification rule, which is beyond the structured data, but says nothing about overwrite behavior or file-creation side effects.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse given the parameter count, but structurally there is zero waste.

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 8-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, the description is far from sufficient: identifying the chart requires aprx_path, map_name, and member_name, none of which are explained. The output schema covers return values, but parameter understanding is not addressed.

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 0% with 8 parameters, so the burden falls on the description, which only hints at title-based selection and output format. It never explains aprx_path, map_name, member_name, member_type, width, or height, leaving most parameters semantically opaque.

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 (chart), plus the output formats (SVG/PNG/JPEG) and that the chart is identified by a unique title. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_charts or upsert_chart, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as export_layout_image, export_map_to_image, or export_active_view_image, nor any prerequisites (e.g., project open, chart existing). The agent must infer usage entirely.

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