export_drawing

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the agent already knows this is a non-destructive write. The description usefully clarifies that inline preview (and previewOptions) does not alter the exported file, which is genuine added context, but it says nothing about where files land, overwriting behavior, or auth requirements.

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 with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The shift from output formats to inline/previewOptions is slightly abrupt but nothing is wasted.

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 6 parameters, two nested objects, no output schema, and near-zero schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It does mention revision-specific return paths, which helps fill the missing output schema, but leaves the options object, stable, and format semantics entirely unspecified.

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 only 17%, so the description bears most of the explanatory burden, yet it only touches inline and previewOptions. The stable flag, the entire options object (page, frame, scale, margin, metadata, textMode, landscape, background), and the format parameter receive no semantic explanation anywhere.

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 (write/export) and enumerates the resource formats (SVG/PNG/JPG/WebP/vector PDF) plus the returned artifact (revision-specific paths). It is clearly distinguishable from most siblings, but it never names or contrasts with the closest alternative, export_interchange.

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 the inline default and opt-in behavior, which is parameter-level guidance rather than tool-selection guidance. It gives no indication of when to export versus preview_drawing or export_interchange, nor any prerequisites for exporting.

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