export_speaker_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real traits: this is a pure export (no LLM generation/cost), it reads persisted notes rather than re-deriving them, it guarantees slide-order and meaningful line-break fidelity, and it is safe to re-run at a stable checkpoint. Missing are failure modes and whether existing output is overwritten.

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?

Short and front-loaded with the core action, followed by the checkpoint re-call rule and fidelity guarantees; every sentence adds something. The trailing 'Args:' block is prose boilerplate against a schema that already lists project_id.

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 single-parameter export with an output schema describing the return, the description covers what is produced, the source state, when to re-call, and output fidelity. The main omission is workflow placement relative to ingest_speaker_script / prepare_speaker_script and where the exported file lands.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by defining project_id as 'Existing generated or imported project' — a meaningful constraint beyond the bare string type. It still omits format/ID shape and what happens if the ID is unknown or has no notes.

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 and artifact: exports speaker-script.md, and clarifies the source (current saved notes) plus the key constraint 'without generation'. That constraint implicitly separates it from prepare_speaker_script, but it never names the sibling exporters (export_pptx, export_html) it could be confused with.

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?

'Call again at the stable checkpoint after slide edits, moves, or deletion' gives a concrete re-invocation condition, which is genuinely useful. However there is no when-not guidance, no statement that notes must be ingested first, and no routing against prepare_speaker_script or the other export tools.

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