Exportar item do Estúdio para o Google Drive

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/external-service nature is known. The description adds genuinely useful side effects beyond that — a NEW file is created in My Drive, and for slides the .pptx is uploaded and then sent to the Drive trash — plus timing expectations (~5-15 s vs ~40-60 s). It does not state permission/scope requirements or what happens if the Drive quota or auth fails.

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 and return value, then progressively adds per-type detail; nearly every clause earns its place (timings, retry semantics, new-file warning). The parenthetical slide pipeline is dense but is the one place deep detail is warranted.

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 a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return value (a Drive link), the supported/unsupported item matrix, cost in time, side effects, and idempotent retry behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly once.

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 the destino enum already documents the three values, their defaults per item type, and the 'só slides' restriction. The description's per-type destination mapping largely restates that, adding little new parameter meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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 an already-generated Studio item to the account's Google Drive and returns the link, with per-item-type destination mapping. It implicitly separates itself from the notebook_gerar_* family (it exports, it does not generate), but never names the closest sibling notebook_estudio_baixar, so the agent must infer why it would pick Drive export over a local download.

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?

Explicitly enumerates what can be exported and, more valuably, what cannot (interactive report, audio, video, map, cards, quiz have no Google export), which prevents misinvocation. It also gives a concrete retry rule for the 'in progress' slides case and warns against repeating exports without user request.

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