export_collection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: asynchronous operation, potential time delay, returns operation status information, and that completion enables download/UI access. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but covers the essential asynchronous nature thoroughly.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, important behavioral notes, usage guidelines, and parameter/return explanations. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'preserves document hierarchy' could be implied from export), but overall efficiently communicates necessary information without fluff.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description does well by covering purpose, behavior, usage, parameters, and returns. It could mention error cases or authentication requirements, but provides sufficient context for an agent to understand and invoke the tool appropriately.

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 adds meaningful context for both parameters: 'collection_id: The collection ID to export' and 'format: Export format ("outline-markdown", "json", or "html")' including the enum values not in schema. It doesn't specify format details or collection_id constraints, but provides essential semantic clarification.

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 specific action ('Exports all documents in a collection to a downloadable file') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'export_document' (single document) and 'export_all_collections' (all collections). It specifies the resource (collection documents) and outcome (downloadable file).

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 explicit usage scenarios with a bulleted list ('when you need to: - Create a backup... - Share... - Convert... - Archive...'). It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives like 'export_document' (single document) and 'export_all_collections' (all collections) by specifying 'collection' scope.

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