export_pdf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, but it only states the operation. It does not mention that PDF files will be written to outputDir, how overwrite behaves by default, how files are named, or what happens when no documents are open. For an export tool that creates files, this is a meaningful gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the core action and scope, making it highly concise and easy 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 tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unexplained: the relationship between outputDir and pageRange, the meaning of pdfPreset, overwrite behavior, and how multi-document export is structured. The schema documents parameter names, but not the operational behavior an agent needs to invoke the tool confidently.

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 documents all five parameters. The description's 'one or all' phrasing loosely reflects the document parameter but adds no new semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. This is the baseline for a fully covered schema.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Exports', with a clear resource ('one or all open documents') and output format (PDF). It distinguishes this tool from export_image and quick_export, and the scope is immediately useful rather than a restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use export_pdf versus sibling tools like batch_export, quick_export, or export_image. The phrase 'one or all open documents' implies some batch capability, but the description never states when this tool is the right choice or when another tool should be preferred.

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