export_artifact

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the export action and return URL, but omits critical details like side effects (e.g., does it modify the artifact?), authentication requirements, or error conditions.

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 concise and well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. It front-loads the main purpose and provides argument details efficiently.

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?

The description covers parameters and return value (URL), but lacks context on preconditions (e.g., artifact existence) and postconditions (e.g., no modification to source). Given the tool's complexity and no annotations, more completeness is needed.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds essential meaning: it explains notebook_id, artifact_id, export_type (implied values 'docs' and 'sheets'), and title as optional. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool exports a NotebookLM artifact to Google Docs or Sheets, and distinguishes between exporting Data Tables to Sheets and Reports to Docs. This provides specific verb+resource+target differentiation from siblings like download_artifact.

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 includes basic usage guidance by mapping artifact types to export formats (Data Tables → Sheets, Reports → Docs) and listing required arguments. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to other tools or state when not to use it.

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