Export PDF

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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, destructive=false and idempotent=false, so the safety burden is partly lifted; the description adds useful behavior beyond that, noting that batch options apply to all items, that existing files are an error unless overwrite is set, and that the prior front window is restored. It does not discuss permissions or failure modes in more depth, but it is solid given the annotation coverage.

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?

Single dense paragraph that front-loads the core action and source types before defaults and return shape. Every clause carries information, though the packing of many distinct points into one block makes it slightly heavy to scan.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by summarizing the return value ({file:{path,sizeBytes}, exported, paper} and results[] for batches). Combined with naming defaults and the batch alternative, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though deeper detail on batch failure semantics is absent.

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 70% and the description complements it by clarifying the source-type-to-parameter mapping (layout/database/storyIndex/view) and unit/default behavior for 'paper'. It also previews the return shape, which the absent output schema cannot supply.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Saves a window as PDF') and enumerates the supported source types (layout, floor plan story, section, elevation, detail, worksheet, 3D document, View Map view, front window), so an agent knows exactly what can be exported. It also names the sibling publish_publisher_set as the multi-layout alternative, distinguishing itself from it.

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?

Explicitly routes usage: batch several PDFs with 'exports' and prefer publish_publisher_set when many layouts are needed in one go. It also states defaults (paper sizing falls back to layout sheet size, otherwise A3 landscape), giving the agent enough to choose between this tool and its alternatives.

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