export

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful defaults (transparent background, only_ids=true, format inferred from extension, what 'region' covers), but says nothing about overwrite behavior, required document state, or output side effects, so key traits remain undisclosed.

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?

It is compact and information-dense, with the core action front-loaded and the option semantics following. The parenthetical shorthand is slightly cryptic in places, but no sentence is wasted.

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 12-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the important export modes but leaves doc_id and text_to_path unexplained and gives no hint about the return value or file-overwrite behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains region [x,y,w,h] units, ids semantics, only_ids, area values, dpi vs width/height for PNG, and background hex format. It omits doc_id and text_to_path, but covers most of the 12 parameters with real meaning.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and tool ('Export via Inkscape'), which clearly separates it from siblings like render_preview and document_save. The remainder enumerates export modes, reinforcing the purpose, though it never states outright that it writes a file to a path.

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 implies the usage context by explaining the region/ids/area alternatives and the only_ids default, which guides mode selection. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as render_preview or document_save, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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