export_artifact

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

No annotations provided. Description states it exports and returns a URL, but does not disclose permissions, side effects (e.g., whether it creates a new document in user's drive), or any destructive behavior. It is a read-like operation but not explicit.

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?

Description is concise, uses bullet points for supported conversions, and front-loads the core action. Every sentence adds value; no unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given an output schema exists (so return value is covered), the description covers all parameters, supported conversions, and the return URL. It could mention error conditions or prerequisites, but overall complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It lists three required parameters and one optional, and explains the mapping of export_type to target format. However, it does not specify valid values for export_type as an enum or describe format constraints for IDs.

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 it exports an artifact to Google Docs or Sheets, with specific mappings (Data Tables → Sheets, Reports → Docs). It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling tools like download_artifact.

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 implies when to use (export to Google Docs/Sheets) but does not explicitly tell when not to use or compare to alternatives like download_artifact. No exclusion criteria or context-driven guidance.

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