export_pdf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the default path behavior, vector/print-size output, and that overwrite rules follow export_schedule. However, it doesn't mention whether the operation is destructive, what happens on failure, or whether it requires an active document/sheet, which would be useful for a file-exporting 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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core action, format, and size in the first sentence, then covers path defaults and return value in two more sentences. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 has 3 optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which presumably documents the return value). The description covers the path default and overwrite convention, but the 'page' parameter is unexplained, and there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an active sheet) or failure behavior. It's adequate for a simple export but has clear gaps.

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 compensate. It explains the 'path' parameter's default behavior and mentions 'overwrite' rules via export_schedule, but it doesn't explain the 'page' parameter at all. The description adds some meaning beyond the bare schema but leaves one parameter undocumented.

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 sheet to PDF, specifies vector format and print size, and mentions the default path behavior. It distinguishes itself from export_schedule and export_svg by referencing export_schedule for path rules, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternatives.

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 context on when to use this tool (exporting a sheet to PDF) and references export_schedule for path rules, implying a shared convention. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like export_svg or export_dxf, but the PDF-specific purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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