export_interchange

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

Annotations already declare write/non-destructive/non-open-world, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: a fidelity/loss report is returned, strict policy rejects losses by default, and the original source stays unchanged. It stops short of describing failure modes or the exact loss-report shape.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the output artifact and its return values open the block, then option semantics follow. Semicolon-joined fragments carry a lot of meaning per word, though the run-on packing makes it slightly harder to scan than distinct sentences.

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 usefully names the return values (path plus fidelity/loss report) and the non-mutation guarantee for a write tool. The main gap is the unexplained scope/geometry options inside the nested options object, which the schema's 25% coverage does not fill.

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 25%, so the description must compensate. It does explain embedNative and inline and clarifies the strict default for options.policy, but the scope and geometry enums are left undefined and format semantics are unaddressed beyond the enum list.

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) and resource (editable Mermaid/Excalidraw/draw.io handoff), so the purpose is immediately clear and distinguishable from an image-oriented export. However, it never names or contrasts with the sibling export_drawing, leaving the agent to infer the split between the two.

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?

It gives operating guidance (embedNative for full native model, default strict rejects losses, inline controls source text) which implies when certain options matter, but it never states when to choose this tool over export_drawing or preview_drawing. Usage is implied rather than explicitly framed as a decision rule.

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