apple_numbers_export

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

Annotations already flag destructive/non-idempotent behavior, but the description adds real value: the parent-directory requirement, the overwrite:true gate for existing destinations, and the automation-timeout risk on large exports. This discloses behavioral traits beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action then the two key gotchas. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description would ideally hint at the result, but for a destructive export tool it covers the critical operational caveats (directory prerequisite, overwrite gate, timeout). An agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 only 25% (only documentName documented), so the description must compensate. It partially does: it implies path semantics (existing parent directory) and overwrite semantics (overwrite:true for existing destinations) and names the format outputs, but never maps these to the 'path', 'format', or 'overwrite' parameter names directly.

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+resource ('Export Numbers') and names the output formats (PDF, Microsoft Office). It is distinguishable from siblings like apple_numbers_save in intent, though it never explicitly names an alternative. Clear but without explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions: an existing parent directory is required and existing destinations need overwrite:true, plus a timeout caveat for large exports. These are actionable usage constraints, though it doesn't contrast with apple_numbers_save for when to save vs export.

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