export_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but discloses almost nothing beyond the action. It does not mention file-overwrite behavior, whether an open document is required, if the operation is synchronous, or how pageIndex applies to non-PDF formats. The schema hints at 'PDF only' for omitting pageIndex, but the description adds no clarity.

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 a single sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and lists formats explicitly.

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 tool is moderately complex (multiple formats, pageIndex logic), yet the description lacks critical context: return value, error behavior, prerequisites, and file-overwrite semantics. The schema provides some parameter details but the description itself is incomplete for an agent to call correctly.

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% and all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (export) and the resource (Visio document or a page) plus the target formats (PNG, PDF, SVG, EMF, VSDX). It is specific and unambiguous, and no sibling tool appears to offer the same function, so it stands apart.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like save_document, nor when to specify pageIndex versus omit it. There is no context about prerequisites (e.g., document must be open) or exclusions for certain formats.

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