export_zip

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the panelization feature (x/y_repeats, spacing) but omits whether the operation is destructive, required permissions, or error behavior. Adds some context but lacks safety profile.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The main action and key features (panelization) are front-loaded. Perfectly concise.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core export and panelization but omits output path customization and file name. It is adequate but not fully complete for a tool with this complexity.

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 coverage is 0% in the schema itself, but the description explains the formats array and panelization parameters. However, it fails to describe svg_path, output_path, and custom_file_name. The explanation adds meaning for covered params but missing for 3 out of 8.

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 tool exports SVG designs to multiple formats as a ZIP, with explicit examples (e.g., ["dst","pes","svg","threadlist"]). It distinguishes from siblings like export_embroidery which handles single 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 implies use when multiple formats or panelization is needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., export_embroidery, convert_machine_format). Guidance is vague.

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