Export set

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that the whole set is rejected on any single failure (no partial results) and labels risk as low, composing the per-doc engine. This adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, when to use, key params, return shape, example, risk class) and is front-loaded with the main action. It is concise for the complexity but could potentially be shortened slightly.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, output schema, and complex behavior, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, parameter semantics, return shape (per_doc, total_items, total_bytes, consistency with detailed cross-doc verdict), and a concrete example. It feels complete and self-contained.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining key params: doc_ids must be non-empty and duplicate-free, specs is identical to export_batch's list, and dry_run/byte_budget/out_dir/name_prefix behave exactly as in export_batch. It also notes name_prefix is recommended to avoid collisions. Not all six params are fully detailed, but the critical ones are well-covered.

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 explicitly states 'Batch-export a SET of documents in one call' with specific outputs (per-doc results + aggregate + verdict). It distinguishes from siblings like export_batch and create_icon_set, providing clear differentiation.

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' section gives explicit context for multi-document exports and names alternatives (export_batch for single documents, create_icon_set for icon sets). This provides clear guidance on when to choose this tool.

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