export_design_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add meaningful behavioral context: 'Export is refused when automated QA fails' and 'Files are written inside the configured export root only'. It does not disclose return value, overwrite behavior, or permission requirements, but the disclosed constraints are valuable.

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 two sentences: the first states the action and formats, the second states two key constraints. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence contributes valuable information without redundancy.

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?

Given the complex input schema and no output schema, the description would benefit from explaining what the export returns (e.g., file paths) and reconciling the format list with the schema enum. The QA refusal and output root constraints are helpful, but important behavioral aspects like return value and handling of existing files are omitted.

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 the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema, and the format list in the description only includes a subset of the schema's enum values, which could cause confusion about valid format parameters.

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), resource (design document), and formats, distinguishing it from sibling tools. However, the format list 'SVG, PNG, JPG, or multi-page PDF' is a subset of the schema enum (which also includes pptx, gif, mp4), creating a potential mismatch that could mislead an agent about supported formats.

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 provides clear context for using this tool to export design documents, and there is no other export sibling tool, so the usage is implicitly distinct. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is sufficiently clear to guide tool selection.

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