Exportar diagrama Fluyo a SVG

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context about output format parity with the app's export and the lack of animation. However, with no annotations on return/output schema, it doesn't describe what the SVG output looks like structurally, though the parity statement partially compensates.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences covering purpose, use cases, exclusions, and the app-parity guarantee. No wasted words; every clause earns its place. The information about what is NOT available (PNG/GIF, animation) is precisely the disambiguation an agent needs.

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 read-only export tool with 100% schema coverage and clear annotations, the description fully disambiguates the output format, parity guarantee, animation limitations, and use cases. It correctly delegates document structure details to the schema and eliminates ambiguity about which format is being produced.

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 parameters are documented. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior of crop (matching app parity for identical output) and describing the document parameter as the complete .fluyo.json object referencing sibling tools create_diagram/edit_diagram. This adds context beyond bare schema descriptions.

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 description clearly states what it does: renders a Fluyo document page to static SVG with identical shapes, colors, icons, fills, borders and typography as the in-app 'Exportar → SVG'. It identifies the resource (document page), verb (render/export), and output format (SVG), and differentiates from siblings by its format specificity.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('útil para pegar el diagrama en Notion/Confluence/Markdown o previsualizarlo sin abrir Fluyo') and when NOT to ('no incluye animación... para el GIF animado hay que abrir el documento en Fluyo'). It also names the alternative path (opening in Fluyo for GIF/PNG) and explicitly states PNG/GIF are unavailable here.

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