affinity_export

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

Annotations only say readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, so the description adds real value by disclosing that Affinity's filesystem setting restricts where files can be written and that the Desktop is allowed by default. It also documents the area default of whole_document. It stops short of saying whether an existing file at the path is overwritten or what is returned on success.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and format, then area semantics, then the filesystem constraint. The enumeration of formats and areas duplicates the schema enums, which is the only mild waste.

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 four-parameter write tool with no output schema and no annotation detail, the description covers destination semantics and defaults but omits overwrite behavior, whether the parent directory must exist, and any indication of what is returned (path, confirmation, or silent write). That leaves a meaningful gap for an agent preparing a call.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load; it does add meaning for 'path' (must be absolute) and for 'area' (defaults to whole_document), which the bare enum does not convey. However, the format and area value lists largely repeat existing enums, and session_uuid is never mentioned at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Export a document') plus the full set of output formats and the selectable export areas, so an agent immediately knows this writes an image/PDF file. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling render tools such as affinity_render_selection and affinity_render_spread, whose apparent purpose overlaps with the 'selection' and 'current_spread' area values.

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 implicitly scopes usage by explaining that the target document defaults to the current document and that the filesystem setting constrains writable locations. It never states when to choose this tool over affinity_render_selection or affinity_render_spread, nor any prerequisite for the export directory to exist.

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