export_marked_pdf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the file is written to disk, the default path naming, that unreviewed machine-traced shapes are flagged on the last page, that every page is watermarked, and the exact refusal case for encrypted PDFs. It does not, however, say whether the write is reversible, whether an existing export is silently replaced (the schema's overwrite param partially covers this), or what the tool returns on success — though an output schema exists.

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 first sentence front-loads the deliverable and the content enumeration follows logically, with the constraint/refusal case last. It is dense with genuinely useful operational detail, though some rhetorical flourish ('A construction takeoff is no good without markup') and repetition of the default path from the schema could be trimmed.

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 three-parameter, optional-all export tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the gaps an agent would otherwise have to guess: default output location, overwrite behavior, watermarking, disclosure of unreviewed shapes, and the encryption failure mode. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 all three parameters (path, overwrite, project_name) are already fully documented in the schema, including the overwrite safety semantics. The description adds only the default filename pattern ('<plan> - marked set.pdf'), which duplicates the schema's default text. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a concrete verb and resource ('Writes a distribution-ready PDF to disk') and enumerates exactly what the file contains: legend cover with per-condition totals, all marked sheets, quantity chips, annotation clouds, approval marks. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling by contrasting with export_report ('export_report carries the numbers for pricing; this carries the evidence') and from export_dxf/export_takeoff.

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?

It states a positive directive ('finish EVERY takeoff by writing this file and giving the user its path'), names the alternative and what it is for, and describes the review workflow (import export_takeoff payload into the app). It also names the one condition where the tool must be avoided (encrypted plan PDFs) and prescribes the fallback path.

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