Export a diagram

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns file content directly and warns that free-plan SVG exports carry a watermark. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, though it does not mention potential rate limits or authentication requirements, which are less critical for a read-only export 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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Export a diagram as a raw file'). Every sentence adds useful information: formats, return behavior, pricing, and watermark caveat. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 simple tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what formats are supported, what the response contains, cost implications, and a critical watermark limitation. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke this tool without confusion.

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?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches the `format` parameter by noting that `drawio` files are openable at app.diagrams.net and that SVG exports may have a watermark, adding value beyond the enum. The `diagram_id` parameter is not further elaborated, but the schema already describes it adequately.

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 verb 'export' with the resource 'a diagram' and specifies the output formats `drawio` and `svg`, distinguishing it from sibling tools like `get_diagram` or `generate_diagram`. It also clarifies the output type ('raw file') and return behavior, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context: use this tool when you need a raw file export in drawio or svg format. It also notes that exports are free and free-plan SVG exports carry a watermark, which informs usage decisions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as `get_diagram` for structured content, so it falls short of a 5.

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