Export Wisp FigureFree diagnostics

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, closed-world), and the description usefully adds that the output is 'bounded', 'secret-safe', excludes user text and absolute paths, and 'never uploads data'. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured fields, though it doesn't cover where the ZIP lands or its lifecycle.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and constraints. No wasted text, though one more clause on the output destination would have earned 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 write tool with no output schema and zero parameter descriptions, the description is only partially complete: it omits the scope/time-range parameters and does not say where the ZIP is written or how it is delivered to the caller.

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% for 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the sanitized_bundle default and the exclusion of user text and absolute paths, indirectly covering detail/includeUserText/includeAbsolutePaths, but says nothing about scope, since, until, or correlationId semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('diagnostic ZIP') with scoping context ('for the current server session'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many sibling export tools such as figure_library_plan_bundle_export or figure_library_submission_export.

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 offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives among the many sibling tools. It implies a diagnostic-collection scenario but leaves the agent to infer when to pick this over bundle or submission exports.

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