export_pdf

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses the tool's inability to paginate or merge nodes, warns about slow performance on large pages, and specifies return behavior including null path when missing/not exportable and empty:true for blank PDFs. This is rich context that goes well beyond annotations.

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?

Each of the four sentences carries distinct information: core function, API limitation, usage/alternative, and return values/edge cases. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place 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 the tool has no output schema, the description fully explains the return object and failure modes, while also covering purpose, limitations, alternatives, and parameter usage. This is a complete picture for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema descriptions already cover both parameters (nodeId and outPath) with 100% coverage. The tool description repeats the nodeId semantics and adds a performance caution for large pages, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 it exports a node or the current page to a single-page vector PDF, specifies valid node types (frame/section/component), and distinguishes itself from save_screenshots by noting raster vs vector output. This is a specific verb+resource+output combination.

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?

It explicitly names save_screenshots as an alternative for raster output (PNG/JPG), explains the API's pagination limitation to prevent mis-use for multi-page exports, and gives concrete guidance on when to pass nodeId vs omit it for the current page.

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