Exportar

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses non-destructive behavior ('sin tocar el documento'), which is the key safety trait for an agent. However it says nothing about output location, overwrite behavior, permissions, or file-writing side effects beyond the folder parameter.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the scope enumeration and the special 'slides' hint are both front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

A 9-parameter, nested-object export tool with no output schema and low schema coverage needs more than a mode list. Format, quality, scale, crop/slices handling and where files land are all left implicit, which is a significant gap for correct invocation.

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?

Only 33% schema coverage across 9 parameters, and the description explains essentially just 'mode' (and its 'slides' value). Key parameters (folder, name, scale, format, quality, crop, slices array) get no additional meaning from the prose, so it does little to compensate for the thin schema.

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 (Exporta) and resource (copias/documento, artboards, grupos, slices), and even enumerates the export granularities. It is clearly an export tool and none of the siblings overlap with exporting, so no sibling differentiation is needed beyond scope.

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?

Gives the mode choices (documento entero, artboards, grupos de nivel superior, slices) and one explicit routing condition: for a panoramic carousel use mode:'slides'. It lacks any 'when not to use' or prerequisite guidance, but the context is clear enough to select the right mode.

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