export_artifact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mapping of artifact types to output formats (Data Tables→Sheets, Reports→Docs), which is helpful. However, it does not mention side effects, required scopes, or error conditions, but the behavior is fairly obvious 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?

The description is extremely concise with a clear first sentence and bulleted list for supported types. Every word adds value, and the structure is easy to scan. Perfectly sized.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and mapping, and the output schema handles return values. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., authentication) and edge cases (e.g., unsupported artifact types). Still, for a straightforward export, it is mostly complete.

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% and includes descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking artifact types to export_type values ('docs' or 'sheets'), enhancing understanding beyond the schema. This extra mapping justifies a 4.

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 clearly states the verb 'export' and the resource 'NotebookLM artifact' to a specific target ('Google Docs or Sheets'). It also distinguishes from the sibling 'download_artifact' by specifying the output destination, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implicitly suggests usage when exporting to Google Docs/Sheets but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are provided, so guidance is minimal.

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