illustrator_export_document

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

Beyond the annotations (which it restates faithfully), it adds real operational context: the file at file_path is overwritten (destructive to filesystem), artboard_only runs a pre-check, PDF goes through saveAs with a longer timeout, and return_image yields base64 ImageContent. This is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs and annotations do not carry.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose first, then contract, usage, examples, notes. Each section carries information, though the CONTRACT line largely duplicates the annotations and could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description fills the remaining gaps (destructive overwrite, format-specific timeouts, pre-check behavior, image return path). An agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly on the first attempt.

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?

The description pairs parameters with semantics that the schema alone leaves thin: scale is tied to raster output, return_image is constrained to PNG/JPG, and artboard_only is explained as clipping with a pre-check. artboard_index is left to its schema description, and no example uses it, so coverage is strong but not exhaustive.

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 first line states a specific verb (export), resource (the active document), and the exact output formats (PNG, JPG, SVG, PDF). No sibling tool performs document export, so it is cleanly distinguishable from get_document, preflight_check, and place_file.

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 WHEN TO USE block names concrete scenarios (raster export with scale, vector formats, visual feedback via return_image). It clearly routes the agent by intent, but never states when NOT to use it or names an alternative tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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