export_document

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

The annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description supplies the missing context that explains those hints: "Existing files with the same name are replaced." It also covers directory-creation behavior ("Created if missing") and the key safety fact that the open document is untouched, which the agent cannot get from annotations alone.

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 purpose and the file-replacement warning are front-loaded, and per-parameter notes are line-separated so they scan well. There is slight redundancy between the "e.g. [\"step\", \"stl\"]" example and the "Supported:" list that follows it, but the overall length is justified by the information density.

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?

With only two optional parameters, no enums, and an output schema already present, the description must cover the format vocabulary, default resolution, path rules, and side effects; it does all four. An agent has everything it needs to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: formats gets an explicit supported-value list and a default-config fallback, and directory's absolute/relative resolution, "{format}" substitution token, and auto-creation are all spelled out. This is far more than the schema provides.

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?

"Exports the active document to exchange formats" gives a specific verb and resource, and the format list (step, stl, pdf, ...) makes the scope concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling save_document or export_flat_pattern, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 gives conditional guidance for each parameter (omit formats to use the user's configured formats, omit directory to use the configured directory), which is useful but is parameter behavior rather than when-to-use-this-tool guidance. It never names an alternative such as save_document or export_flat_pattern, so the choice between export paths is only implied by "exchange formats".

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