export_techdraw_page

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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the format constraint (PDF or SVG); it does not say whether an existing file at path is overwritten, whether the page must exist, or what happens when export_format is left empty.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined compression.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but a write tool with four undocumented parameters and no stated prerequisites leaves real gaps. An agent cannot tell from this definition how path and doc_name interact or what an empty export_format means.

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% across four parameters, so the description carries the full burden. The only semantic it supplies is the allowed formats for export_format, and even those are not stated as the parameter's accepted values; path, page_name, and doc_name are entirely unexplained.

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 and resource (export a TechDraw drawing page) and adds the output formats PDF/SVG, which separates it from the generic export_document sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming that alternative, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as an open document or an existing page, and no routing to export_document for non-TechDraw content. The agent must infer all of this.

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