Export the active document to an image/PDF

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'exports' without mentioning side effects like overwriting existing files, whether the file is created fresh, or what happens if the target path is invalid. It does not indicate if the operation is reversible or what errors may occur. This is insufficient for a file-writing operation with no annotation coverage.

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 description is a single sentence with no fluff. It states the key facts (action, formats, path) efficiently. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 that writes a file, the description is incomplete. It does not mention whether the document must be open, what happens if the path exists, or whether the operation returns a status. There is no output schema, so the agent cannot infer response behavior. Given the simplicity of the tool (only two params), some of this could be implied, but the lack of any leading or trailing context makes it minimally viable at best.

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?

The schema already describes 'path' (absolute output path including extension), but 'format' has no description beyond the enum. The tool description does not add meaning to the parameters: it merely repeats that output goes to a path. It fails to explain the relationship between format and extension, or any constraints (e.g., whether extension must match format). With only 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 clearly states the action (export), the resource (active document), and the supported formats (PNG, JPEG, PDF, SVG) plus output path. It is specific and not a tautology, and it distinguishes itself from save_document by framing it as an export of the active document. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like save_document or run_script, leaving some ambiguity about when export is preferred.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as save_document or create_document. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an open document), file overwrite behavior, or conditions like 'use export when you need an image format'. The lack of any usage context forces the agent to infer applicability solely from the name and description.

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