apple_pages_export

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the overwrite requirement for existing destinations and the warning that large exports may exceed the automation timeout, which annotations cannot convey.

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 purpose first, then prerequisites, then the timeout caveat. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padded.

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 should resolve what the agent gets back (file path? confirmation?) and whether path is a directory or full destination, neither of which is stated. It does cover prerequisites and timeout risk adequately for a mutation tool whose annotations already flag destructiveness.

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% (documentName alone is documented), so the description carries extra burden. It adds meaning for path (must be an existing parent directory) and overwrite (needed for existing destinations), but leaves ambiguity about whether path is a directory or full destination and adds nothing about the format values beyond the enum.

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 (export) and resource (Pages) plus the target formats (PDF / Microsoft Office, matching the pdf/docx enum). However it never distinguishes itself from sibling save/export tools such as apple_pages_save or apple_numbers_export, so the agent must infer routing from the app name alone.

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?

Provides concrete prerequisites (existing parent directory, overwrite:true for existing destinations), which is real usage guidance. But it never names an alternative tool or states when not to use it, leaving the save-vs-export choice implicit.

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