begin_page_content_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description clearly communicates the async behavior and the polling mechanism. While it doesn't detail side effects or authentication, the essential behavioral trait (async export with polling) is well-conveyed, which is sufficient for this context.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately conveys the key behavior (async, polling). No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the async nature and existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential flow: start export, get request ID, poll status. It omits potential failure modes or concurrency details, but for a straightforward export tool, this is nearly complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that output_format accepts 'HTML or markdown', adding meaning beyond the schema. However, doc_id and page_id_or_name are not explained, leaving some ambiguity despite their self-evident names.

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 verb 'Start', the resource 'page content export', and specifies the output formats 'HTML or markdown'. It also explains the async nature and mentions the related polling tool, distinguishing it from siblings like get_page_content_export_status.

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 mentions polling with get_page_content_export_status to check completion, providing some usage context. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it include exclusions or prerequisites. This leaves room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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