export_marked_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool writes a PDF to disk, states the default path, notes the machine-traced warning page, clarifies it needs no native canvas, and confirms it is built from the same module as the app button. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and fairly dense, but it is longer than necessary. Several phrases could be tightened (e.g., 'The MARKED-UP PLANSET — the deliverable of every takeoff' and later 'A construction takeoff is no good without markup'). Still, most sentences earn their place, covering content, workflow, caveats, and edge cases.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the PDF contains, when to use it, how it relates to other workflows, the machine-traced caveat, the default path, and the no-canvas requirement. There are no obvious gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description only reiterates the default path for the 'path' parameter and does not add deeper meaning for 'overwrite' or 'project_name.' It adds no practical usage nuances beyond what the schema already states.

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 a specific deliverable: 'Writes a distribution-ready PDF to disk' and enumerates its contents (legend cover, vector-copied sheets, quantity chips, annotation clouds). It explicitly differentiates from siblings: 'export_report carries the numbers for pricing; this carries the evidence,' and notes it is the same module as the canvas's MARKED SET button.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'finish EVERY takeoff by writing this file and giving the user its path.' It contrasts with exports ('export_report carries the numbers... this carries the evidence') and notes a conditional usage context ('When the shapes were machine-traced and unreviewed... the review path is importing the export_takeoff payload'). Also mentions it works even where view_sheet cannot render, implying a fallback use case.

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