Create Content Export

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations: the export runs asynchronously, the tool returns an ID and initial workflow_state, and the link is time-limited. It doesn't contradict annotations, and it explains the asynchronous lifecycle.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the essential asynchronous behavior and a clear pointer to the polling tool. Every word is useful and no redundancy exists.

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 simple create operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the workflow: start export, get ID and state, poll with get_content_export, and eventually retrieve a time-limited link. It is complete for agent selection and invocation.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, including the enum values for export_type and their meanings. The description only repeats the format names ('Common Cartridge / QTI / zip') without adding new semantic information, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 ('Start') and identifies the exact resource ('Canvas course content export') plus the valid formats (Common Cartridge / QTI / zip). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling get_content_export, which is for polling progress.

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?

Provides clear context: the tool is for starting an export, and the description explicitly instructs to call get_content_export to poll progress and get the download link. It doesn't mention when to choose this over content migration tools, but the primary workflow is well covered.

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