export_chapter_cbz

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it creates a local file (implied mutation/destructive operation), has a limitation (external chapters cannot be exported), and provides output reporting guidance. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the chapter doesn't exist.

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 sentences, zero waste. First sentence states purpose and key limitation. Second sentence provides valuable output reporting guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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 the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 100% schema coverage, and no complex nested objects, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose, key limitation, and output reporting guidance. The main gap is lack of behavioral details like authentication or error handling, but with output schema existing, this is less critical.

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 the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions (like explaining UUID format or data-saver vs original quality trade-offs). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the specific action ('Export'), resource ('internal MangaDex chapter'), and output format ('local CBZ file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like export_chapter_pdf (different format) and get_chapter_access_info (information retrieval rather than file export). It explicitly mentions the limitation to internal chapters only.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('Export an internal MangaDex chapter') and when not to use it ('External-hosted chapters cannot be exported'), but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like export_chapter_pdf for different formats or when to use information retrieval tools instead. The reporting guidance ('prefer reporting only the saved path') is helpful but not about tool selection.

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