export_xml

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful behavior: invalid drafts are refused rather than exported, and the output is always a schema-valid Europass document. It does not mention potential side effects or persistence, but the return behavior is described.

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?

Two short, purposeful sentences: the main action comes first, followed by the critical validation behavior and a helpful pointer. No filler, every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter export tool with an output schema, the description explains the key validation gate and the prerequisite to validate first, making it sufficiently complete for an agent. Slightly more detail on how the XML is delivered or how it differs from export_pdf would add completeness, but output schema covers return shape.

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 only parameter, draft_id, is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the workflow context of validating first, so the baseline for full schema coverage applies.

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?

Description uses the specific verb 'Write' and resource 'finished CV as Europass XML', clearly distinguished from the sibling export_pdf by naming the target format. The validation guarantee further reinforces what the tool does.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call validate_cv first to find out what is missing, establishing a clear precondition for use. It implies the tool is for finished, validated drafts, but does not explicitly contrast with export_pdf or state when not to use it.

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