doc2x_convert_export_submit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the asynchronous job-starting behavior, the need for subsequent polling, and the critical parallelization constraint. However, it lacks details about authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling that would be valuable for a mutation tool.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the core functionality, the second provides critical usage guidance. There is zero wasted language, and the most important information (the parallelization warning) is appropriately emphasized.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the asynchronous workflow and critical constraints. However, it doesn't describe what the export job actually produces (e.g., file format details, output location) or potential error conditions, leaving some gaps in understanding the complete behavior.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'uid+format' which maps to the 'uid' and 'to' parameters, but provides no additional context about parameter meanings, interactions, or usage examples. The schema does most of the work, resulting in a baseline score.

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 the specific action ('Start an export (convert) job') and resource ('for a parsed PDF uid'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like doc2x_convert_export_wait and doc2x_convert_export_result which handle subsequent polling/result retrieval. It explicitly names the verb and target resource with precision.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('After this, poll with doc2x_convert_export_wait or doc2x_convert_export_result') and when not to use it ('Do NOT call doc2x_convert_export_submit twice for the same uid+format in parallel'), clearly differentiating it from alternatives and specifying critical exclusions.

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