Export Story Manuscript

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the export includes a table of contents and author information and that output is a file in one of several formats, but it does not mention overwrite behavior, required project context, or what happens with the unsupported PDF option.

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 that states the action, target, formats, and bundled output contents. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized for a tool with full schema coverage.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It identifies the output formats and included sections, but leaves gaps around overwrite behavior, project context, and error/format limitations such as the PDF enum value.

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 the schema already explains format, outputPath, and includeOutline. The description adds only a high-level list of formats and mentions TOC/author info, which is not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate because 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 gives a specific verb-resource pair: "Đóng gói và xuất bản toàn bộ tác phẩm" into named file formats. It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named story_export_layout_brief sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by "toàn bộ tác phẩm" — export the whole manuscript — but the description does not state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. It also gives no guidance on choosing among the supported formats.

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