Export Artifact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool exports to an external Google destination and lists supported conversions, but it does not mention required Google authentication, file-creation side effects, or Drive permission implications. This is reasonable but not fully transparent.

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?

The description is short, front-loaded with the core action, and uses a compact bullet list to convey the supported mappings. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague 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?

The output schema and fully described parameters cover the return value and argument details, and the description covers the main usage mapping. However, because there are no annotations, the description should also disclose Google-side prerequisites such as authentication or Drive write behavior; this gap prevents full completeness for a mutating external export tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by mapping artifact types to export targets, thereby clarifying the meaning of export_type values 'docs' and 'sheets' in a way the raw schema does not.

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 opening sentence names a specific action (Export), a resource (NotebookLM artifact), and a destination (Google Docs or Sheets). The artifact-type mapping further clarifies scope and distinguishes this from sibling download tools like download_artifact, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 bullet list explicitly tells the agent which artifact types map to which export target: Data Tables → Google Sheets, Reports → Google Docs. This gives clear context for selecting the right export_type and target. It does not explicitly mention alternatives such as download_artifact or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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