document_export_batch

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

Annotations provide only destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden. It adds genuinely useful publish semantics: all_or_nothing verifies every variant before one logical publish (atomic) versus best_effort publishing verified successes (partial success). However it omits other material behavior: that outputs are written to disk targets, overwrite semantics, the sync/job delivery switch, timeout behavior, and planToken idempotency/planning requirements.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the batch scope is front-loaded ahead of the mode semantics. It is efficient, though arguably under-sized for a tool whose schema is this deep.

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 tool with 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, deeply nested oneOf format branches, and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description is far too thin. The elements an agent most needs (planToken sourcing, delivery mode, timeout, overwrite/expectedRevision concurrency behavior) are absent, though the presence of an output schema excuses it from documenting return values.

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%, so the description must compensate for 7 parameters, yet it only loosely maps to mode and never mentions specs, preset, delivery, planToken, timeoutMs, or workspaceId. The names 'all_or_nothing' and 'best_effort' roughly correspond to mode enum values, but planToken (which links to the document_export_preset_plan sibling) and delivery are left entirely unexplained.

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 and resource ("Renders a bounded batch of ... variants"), which is clearer than a tautology. But the enumerated formats (PNG, PDF, SVG, plain SVG) are only a subset of what the schema actually accepts (ps, eps, emf, wmf, xaml, dxf, hpgl, fxg, sif, gpl, svgz), so the scope statement is partially misleading. It also gives no differentiation from near-identical siblings such as document_export, export_png, export_pdf, or document_export_preset_plan.

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 two clauses explain what the mode values do, not when to pick this tool over document_export, export_png, or document_export_preset_plan. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no guidance on batching vs single export. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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