drive_files_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'Returns JSON with export metadata' which is helpful, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the export fails. The behavioral context is incomplete for a tool that performs file operations.

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 description is perfectly concise with only two sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides crucial usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary 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 tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description does an adequate job. It explains the purpose and provides usage guidance, but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of behavioral context that would be helpful for a file export operation. The mention of JSON return format helps, but more behavioral details would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It mentions 'specific format' which aligns with the mimeType parameter but provides no extra details.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Export a Google Workspace file'), identifies the resource type ('Doc, Sheet, Slide'), and specifies the output format ('to a specific format'). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'drive_files_download' by explaining the difference in return behavior.

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 provides when to use this tool ('Export a Google Workspace file') versus when to use an alternative ('Use drive_files_download for automatic export with content returned inline'). This gives clear guidance on tool selection based on the desired output format.

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