document_export

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false. The description adds that conversion runs through a bounded Inkscape pipeline and that legacy vector formats require explicit fidelity acknowledgement, which is useful context, but it omits output write/overwrite semantics, revision checks, and failure behavior.

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 two sentences are front-loaded and free of filler. The format enumeration is long but functional given the schema's many export branches.

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 values need not be described. Yet for a high-complexity multi-format export with 0% schema description coverage, the description is thin: it lacks sibling selection guidance and does not cover workspaceId or important target/revision 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 0%, and the description does not explain workspaceId or the nested ExportSpec fields such as area, source, target, or format-specific options. It only names the ExportSpec as validated, lists formats, and references fidelity limits, leaving most parameter meaning to the schema structure itself.

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 provides a specific verb and resource: exporting a document/selection to a list of graphic formats from a validated ExportSpec through a bounded Inkscape pipeline. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling export_png, export_pdf, export_svg, or document_export_batch.

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?

It gives a prerequisite ('validated ExportSpec') and a conditional rule that legacy vector formats require explicit acknowledgement of fidelity limits. However, it never says when to choose this tool over narrower export siblings or batch/preset alternatives, so usage remains implied.

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