export_gpx

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose that this is a file write of GPX 1.1 with elevation and that the target directory must pre-exist. It is silent on overwrite behavior (does an existing file get replaced?), whether the filename derives from the name param or route_id, and whether permissions/side effects apply.

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 no filler; every clause (format, elevation, directory constraint) earns its place. The packed parenthetical for out_dir constraints is slightly terse but readable.

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 described, and the format/elevation/directory requirements are covered. For a filesystem-mutating tool with zero annotations, though, the overwrite semantics and how the output filename is chosen are meaningful gaps.

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 compensate, and it only partially does: out_dir gets real added meaning (must exist, absolute or ~), but route_id is left implicit and the name parameter is never explained (filename? GPX track name?). The most ambiguous parameter is undocumented.

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 names a specific verb ("Write") and resource ("a planned route as GPX 1.1") plus the output destination, which is far more precise than the bare name export_gpx. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like plan_route or route_details, but the write-to-file purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It states one prerequisite for out_dir ("must exist; absolute or ~"), which implies the tool is used after a route exists. However, it never says when to choose this over alternatives, nor that a route must be planned first (e.g., via plan_route) or that route_id must reference an existing route.

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