document_export

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, and the description adds useful context: the source is an immutable saved revision and resulting files remain under workspace exports. It does not, however, explain what destructive behavior might occur, such as overwriting existing exports or consuming additional workspace resources.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the action and formats, the second adds the setup requirement and output location. Every sentence contributes useful 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 four-parameter export tool with no output schema, the description covers the format enum, page selection, the revision constraint, the setup prerequisite, and output location. It omits what the tool returns and destructive overwrite details, but annotations and the schema close most of the remaining 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining format choices, including PNG selected page vs contact sheet, and the notion of a saved, immutable revision. It doesn't explicitly explain documentId, but the required parameter's role is largely inferable from context.

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 uses a specific verb ('Export') and identifies the resource ('explicit immutable saved revision') plus the output formats. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool like preview_render, but the format list and saved-revision scope make the purpose clear and distinguishable.

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 provides a concrete prerequisite: PDF/PNG require setup-export once, and implies the tool is for exporting saved revisions rather than live previews. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so routing guidance is mostly implicit.

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