Api document revisions export pdf retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is a PDF document, which is real value, but it does not say how the PDF is delivered (binary stream, base64, or download URL) — a critical behavior for a file-export tool where no output schema exists to clarify.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler — verb, resource, and format in order. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of the under-specification problem rather than a virtue in itself.

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 file-export endpoint with one undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description should at minimum identify what the id refers to and what form the PDF response takes. Neither is present, leaving the agent unable to call the tool correctly without guessing.

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 0% for the single 'id' parameter, so the description must carry the burden. It never states whether 'id' refers to the revision ID, the document ID, or the managed document ID, leaving the most important ambiguity for this call unresolved.

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 names a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('revision content') plus the output format (PDF document), so an agent knows this produces a PDF export of a revision. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as document_revisions_diff, edit_history, or retrieve, nor clarify whether the exported content is the revision snapshot or the rendered managed document.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over the many sibling read tools (diff_retrieve, edit_history_retrieve, retrieve). No prerequisites, permissions, or conditions are mentioned. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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