Export (PDF, Excel, Word, PowerPoint…)

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the export is verified against the source by a second tool, the source is confirmed unchanged, and output defaults next to the source. It does not discuss failure modes (e.g., what happens if the format is unsupported for that app) or the backup behavior on overwrite, which the schema covers instead.

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-loads the core purpose and format matrix, then moves to optional settings and caveats in a logical order. Slightly repetitive — the per-app format list duplicates the schema's format description and the title — but every remaining sentence (verification, macOS requirement, the edit-in-place warning) 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is correctly omitted, and annotations plus the full param schema cover the mechanics. The description supplies the platform requirement and the post-export verification step, which are not in structured fields. It stops short of covering error/unsupported-format handling, leaving a small gap for a mutation tool with destructive semantics.

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 100%, so all eight parameters are already documented in the schema, including out, password, overwrite, image_format, and image_quality. The description restates the format options and mentions password/hint/image settings, but adds no syntax, constraints, or defaults beyond the structured data. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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, and enumerates the exact format matrix per app (Numbers: pdf|xlsx|csv, Pages: pdf|docx|epub|txt|rtf, Keynote: pdf|pptx|images|movie). This lets an agent distinguish it from conversion-adjacent siblings like iwork_verify_format or iwork_create without opening any 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Use to hand the result over in another format') plus a clear when-not with an alternative: 'Never export to docx/pptx/xlsx to edit and convert back: edit the iWork file directly.' Also names the platform prerequisite (macOS + the app). Nothing is left to inference.

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