export

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does disclose useful traits: the document is exported with unsaved changes, the file is read back and reports page size/pixel size/embedded fonts, and text_to_path exists for printers that cannot take fonts. It omits whether an existing file at path is overwritten, permission requirements, and failure behavior.

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?

Dense but front-loaded and organized with a clear "What to export:" label; nearly every clause conveys distinct parameter information and little is filler. The semicolon-chained style is slightly hard to scan but appropriate given nine undocumented parameters.

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 complex nine-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers nearly all calling details, and the output schema means return values need not be explained (the read-back note is a bonus). Remaining gaps are overwrite behavior and error/permission conditions.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, and it does: format source (suffix vs format=), area values, ids/only overlap semantics, region_mm restricted to PNG, dpi for PNG resolution and PDF/EPS/PS filters, text_to_path behavior, and background default (transparent). Only the required path parameter itself is not spelled out, a minor gap against eight well-documented parameters.

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 precise verb and resource ("Export the live document") and enumerates the output formats (PDF, SVG, EPS, PS, PNG). The parenthetical "(unsaved changes included)" implies a scope distinction, but no sibling such as save_copy or render is named, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 rather than stated: the description thoroughly explains what can be exported (area, ids, region_mm) but never says when to reach for export versus save_copy or render. Because export is largely self-evident in name and format list, the implied guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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