figure_library_plan_submission_export

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine value by stating it writes no ZIP and by listing the required host-verified state before it succeeds. This precondition and side-effect-free note go beyond the structured hints.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, then prerequisites, then a disambiguating caveat. No filler and every clause carries information.

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 read-only plan/preview tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description conveys what the preview returns (inventory and destination) and the state needed to run it. Only the parameter meanings remain unaddressed.

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 two required parameters. The description's phrase 'language-specific' only loosely gestures at the locale enum and says nothing about figureId (a UUID identifying the target). It does not compensate for the documentation gap.

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 (preview) and resource (language-specific submission ZIP inventory and destination), and the final sentence scopes it as figure source-data packaging rather than journal compliance, distinguishing it from sibling submission tools. An agent can identify what this produces without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear preconditions for use (complete archive plus current host-verified language preparation) and clarifies it writes no ZIP, which routes the agent to the apply counterpart for actual export. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool, so it reads as clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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