Export PDF

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

Annotations provide only a title and no readOnly/destructive hints, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It confirms the file-export action but does not mention whether existing PDFs are overwritten, whether the drawing is modified, or what is returned; it also leaves the active-document requirement implicit. The only added detail about backends (COM vs ezdxf) lives in the schema, not 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?

A single sentence containing only the essential action and scope, with the output format stated up front. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 tool has only two parameters and the schema already documents both, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the agent to infer return behavior and side effects. For a simple export command the essentials are present, but an explicit note about file creation/overwrite or a pointer to the layout-specific rendering behavior would make it fully self-contained.

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% for both parameters, so the description is not required to repeat them. The main description's 'current drawing (or a paper-space layout)' loosely aligns with the layout parameter, but it adds no syntax, format, or default semantics beyond the schema. 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?

The description uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Export ... to PDF') and identifies both model space and paper-space layout modes, which clearly distinguishes it from screenshot/deliver siblings. The parenthetical scope disambiguates what will be exported. It is not a tautology or vague.

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 implies use when a PDF of the current drawing or a named layout is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like view_screenshot, drawing_finalize, or drawing_deliver, and gives no exclusions. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the 'to PDF' phrasing alone.

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