figure_library_apply_submission_export

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not readOnly, not idempotent, not destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that existing files are preserved, that source/translation digests and workspace are rechecked, and that no upload, journal submission, or arbitrary execution occurs. This clarifies the mutation's blast radius well.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: core action, validation behavior, then boundaries. The primary action is front-loaded with no wasted prose.

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 one-parameter apply tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (generation, overwrite protection, digest rechecking, side-effect exclusions). The main gap is the missing prerequisite linking planDigest to a plan tool, which an agent would need to invoke this correctly.

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 single parameter planDigest has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining it — and it does not. The mention of rechecking digests is loosely related but never defines planDigest, its format, or its origin. With an undocumented required parameter, the definition under-compensates.

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 names a specific verb ("Generate") and resource ("the reviewed language ZIP") and immediately scopes it with "without overwriting existing files." An agent can distinguish it from the many sibling plan/apply tools as an apply-step exporter. It does not explicitly name the likely sibling figure_library_plan_submission_export, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives. The description never states the prerequisite that planDigest must come from a prior plan step (e.g. plan_submission_export) nor when this tool should be chosen over prepare_submission or apply_publication_export. The "No upload, journal submission..." sentence limits scope behaviorally but does not help select the tool.

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