Create Content Export

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing asynchronous behavior ('Canvas packages it in the background') and the required polling loop, which the structured hints do not convey. It does not cover permissions needed or what happens on a duplicate export request, but the async lifecycle is the key behavioral fact here.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the async follow-up, then the alternative. Every sentence carries information and none is padded.

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?

With only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: that the call returns an ID and that the result must be fetched via get_content_export. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke and follow through is absent.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema (course_id source, export_type enum meanings). The description's format names largely restate the enum values and add no syntax or default detail beyond them.

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 ('Start a course export') plus the two output formats (.imscc Common Cartridge or zip of files). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_content_export (polling) and export_course_archive (export + download), so an agent can tell the three apart without opening any schema.

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?

Names the follow-up tool ('poll get_content_export with the returned ID') and the alternative ('export_course_archive does export and download in one step'), which gives a real basis for choosing between them. It stops just short of an explicit exclusion clause, but the routing information is clear.

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