docs_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does convey the key side effect of writing a file to disk, which is the most important behavioral fact here, but it says nothing about overwrite protection, authentication requirements, or 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource lead and the format list is the only elaboration. Every clause earns its place.

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 five-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action but omits what is returned (path? confirmation?), overwrite/error semantics, and account-selection context. It is minimally adequate given the fairly rich schema, but not complete.

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 80%, so most parameters (doc, path, account, overwrite) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the format enum values, adding no syntax, default, or format-specific nuance beyond what is structured.

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 specific verb (Download), a specific resource (a Google Doc), and the destination (local file) plus the full set of output formats. This cleanly separates it from siblings like docs_read (content into context) and docs_open (open in browser), so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'to a local file' implies the use case (materializing a document on disk), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no naming of alternatives such as docs_read or docs_open. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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