Create Content Export

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

The description discloses the asynchronous behavior: returns immediately with an export ID and initial workflow_state ('created'), and that the download link is time-limited. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations. However, annotations include destructiveHint=true, and the description doesn't explicitly warn about resource consumption or cleanup, though it does note the async nature. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it does, the async behavior, and the next step. Front-loaded with the core purpose, then critical behavioral detail, then routing guidance. No 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?

For a 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: initiation, polling, and download link retrieval. It doesn't mention error cases or permission requirements, but the async flow and next-step routing are sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. The destructiveHint annotation is present but the description doesn't elaborate on what 'destructive' means here, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the export_type enum values in plain language (common_cartridge for migration/backup, qti for assessments only, zip for Canvas-native files archive), which helps an agent choose correctly. This goes beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Start'), a resource ('Canvas course content export'), and the formats (Common Cartridge / QTI / zip). It clearly distinguishes this from related tools like get_content_export and list_content_exports by naming the asynchronous initiation role.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent to call get_content_export to poll progress and retrieve the download link, which is a clear when-to-use/next-step instruction. It also implies this tool is for starting exports, not checking them, which differentiates it from sibling tools.

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