Export the ballooned drawing / inspection package PDF

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description usefully reinforces this with "The source PDF is never modified" plus the default write location and derived filenames. It adds real behavioral context beyond the annotation flags, though it does not mention what happens on a filename collision or what it returns.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause and the remaining sentences each carry distinct information about the variants and the untouched source file. It is dense rather than bloated, though the run-on variant sentence with quoted labels is harder to scan than a short list would be.

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 write tool with a large nested plan object, the description covers the highest-risk ambiguity (which PDF you get) and the source-file safety guarantee. With no output schema, the one remaining gap is that it never says what the call returns or how to reference the written file, which an agent would need for a follow-up step.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value by spelling out what each variant actually renders and by giving the output filename convention per variant (<drawing number>_inspection-package.pdf / _ballooned.pdf / _quality-plan.pdf), which the schema only alludes to via 'default package'.

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 "Write the inspection PDF" gives a specific verb+resource, and the three variant descriptions pin down exactly what artifacts are produced (marked-up drawing pages, plan document, or both). It does not, however, distinguish this tool from its sibling export_quality_plan_excel, leaving the agent to infer the PDF-vs-Excel split from names 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?

The description explains what each variant outputs but never states when to choose this tool over build_quality_plan or export_quality_plan_excel, nor any prerequisites beyond the optional pdf_path note. Variant selection guidance is present, but tool-selection guidance is absent.

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