export_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the export action and formats but omits overwrite behavior, required document state, permissions, failure modes, and whether the source document is modified.

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?

The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the Args block is compact. The path example is useful and there is no meaningful waste, though the docstring-style formatting is slightly mechanical.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema documents the instance parameter. However, for a file-writing export operation with no annotations, missing overwrite and active-document requirements leaves a clear 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 only 33%, but the description compensates by documenting the path purpose with an example and the allowed format values STEP, STL, SAT, and IGES. It omits the instance parameter, though the schema itself describes that parameter adequately.

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 and resource: export the active document to another format. It is clear enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with save_document or import_step.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when the active document needs to be written in another format, and the supported formats are listed. It does not explicitly say when to use this versus save_document, nor does it state prerequisites such as having an active document open.

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