export_marked_pdf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool writes to disk, uses a default path, requires no native canvas, works where view_sheet cannot render, and adds a disclaimer about unreviewed machine-traced shapes. This is comprehensive behavioral context.

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 dense and longer than typical, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured to flow from output deliverable to usage mandate to edge case behavior. Every sentence contributes contextual value for a deliverable-critical tool, even if a bit verbose.

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 two-parameter export tool with no annotations, the description covers output structure, file location, use case, sibling relationships, and limitations. Since an output schema exists, explaining return values is unnecessary. The description is fully contextual and sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 100% for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the default path behavior ('next to the loaded plan as "<plan> - marked set.pdf"') and the project_name fallback to the plan file's name, enriching the schema's field descriptions.

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 opens with 'The MARKED-UP PLANSET — the deliverable of every takeoff. Writes a distribution-ready PDF to disk' and explains exactly what the PDF contains. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by contrasting with export_report ('carries the numbers') and referencing the export_takeoff review path.

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 explicitly instructs to 'finish EVERY takeoff by writing this file' and gives the user the path. It differentiates when to use this tool versus export_report ('this carries the evidence') and explains the review workflow when shapes are machine-traced and unreviewed.

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