pdf_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the transfer happens server-side and the PDF bytes never enter the conversation, and it flags a rejection condition (pending signature request). It does not state auth/permission requirements or reversibility, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layered with destination scope, filename rules, return behavior, and the rejection precondition. Dense but every clause carries information; the filename default detail is slightly heavy relative to its importance.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still helpfully notes it returns the draft's resulting attachment list, and it covers the destination limitation and precondition. The main gaps are the undocumented doc_id/user_id semantics, which the missing schema coverage leaves unexplained.

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 effectively 0% at the top level, so the description must compensate; it explains destination.filename including the signed/filled default convention and the override rule. It says nothing about doc_id or user_id, leaving two of three parameters undocumented in both the prose and the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deliver a PDF document session to its destination') and then narrows it precisely ('v1: attach it to an existing Gmail draft, server-side'). This lets an agent distinguish it from generic siblings like gmail_add_attachment or gmail_composer.save_draft without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear operating context: the destination is currently limited to an existing Gmail draft (v1), and it explicitly states the tool is rejected while a signature request is pending. It does not name an alternative tool to use when the signature is pending, so it stops short of explicit when-not routing.

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